Skip to main content

Full text of "A review of the American Bible Union [microform] : containing an account of its origin, object, and conduct, with a list of its revisers and revisions, exhibiting its condition and prospects"

See other formats

Div. Lib. 




,<** * 


Cbc clnivcrsUv of 




' t t * ' > I > 


V ' " 







BY 0. B. JUDD. 



a 2 




THE resignation of Archibald Maclay, D.D., as President of the 
American Bible Union, with his statement of the reasons which led him 
to take that step, has awakened no little inquiry and anxiety in the 
minds of many, as to the real condition and practical working of that 

In the official papers of the Bible Union, and of the Revision Asso- 
ciation, it is stated that, 

Dr. Maclay " had free access to every document in the archives of the Union, 
and whenever he desired it, copies of them were furnished for his personal use" ; 
that, " They [Dr. Maclay and myself] have occupied positions that should have 
opened all the affairs of the Bible Union to their inspection ;" and that, " We do 
not.^call in question the goodness of Father Maclay." " We do not and cannot 
attribute his unlooked-for course to any moral obliquity of heart or mind." 

It is here admitted that Dr. Maclay had the means of knowing all 
the facts in the case, and that he is too upright to affirm anything upon 
his own personal knowledge, which he does not know to be true ; from 
which it must be concluded that his statement is entirely reliable. For 
the idea that lie is mentally incapable of ascertaining and telling the 
truth, relative to the subject matter of his pamphlet, is too absurd to 
admit of a question. And the allegation that he is not the " real au- 
thor " of the pamphlet bearing his name, and containing the reasons of 
his resignation, has no foundation in truth. 

All candid inquirers are, therefore, referred to Dr. Maclay's statement, 
for accurate information upon every matter of which he speaks. But 
having been myself one of its founders, and a member of its Board, from 
the beginning to the present time ; having often, in . public and in pri- 
vate, commended the Institution, as worthy of implicit confidence and 
liberal support ; and being now satisfied that, through official misman- 
agement, the organization has been so crippled, that it cannot, without 
a radical reformation, overcome the inherent difficulties of the undertak- 
ing, I feel it my duty to add my testimony to what Dr. Maclay has 
stated, and to give some additional information, 



Such an exposition is rendered doubly necessary by the imposing mis- 
representations which have been palmed upon the public, in opposition 
to the letter of Dr. Maclay. 

But before making any statement with direct reference to the condi- 
tion and management of the Bible Union, I will dispose of some allega- 
tions, which the officers of the Union and the Revision Association have 
made against me ; as such allegations, if left unrefuted, might unjustly 
impair the credibility of my testimony. Two* official documents of the 
Bible Union, and onef of the Revision Association, abound with calum- 
nious expressions like the following : 

' "Something less than a year before the decease of Dr. Cone, Dr. Judd had 
threatened to sue him, as President of the Bible Union, and it was with great diffi- 
culty that he was prevented from carrying the threat into execution." "After 
the painful circumstances connected with this affair, Dr. Cone felt deeply wounded, 
and frequently alluded in these rooms to the unkind and ungrateful conduct which 
he experienced from that quarter, and declared that the Union would have great 
trouble with him (Dr. Judd) one of these days." "Dr. Judd has even gone so far 
as to say before the Board, that the less reference was made to that name (Dr. 
Cone's), in conducting our business, the better." " No sooner had the Committee 
met than it became apparent that the real object of Dr. Judd was to destroy the 
character and standing of the Corresponding Secretary." " He did, from the 1st 
of June, 1854, to the 1st of January, 1855 seven months of the time in which he 
drew his full salary as a reviser edit and publish the N. Y. Chronicle, and keep its 
pecuniary accounts." "Brother Judd refuses to give any information about the 
probable time of completing the work assigned him." " This estimate of his own 
merits and of the value of his labors far exceeds that of reasonable men." "Mr. 
Judd was editor and half-proprietor of the New York Monthly Chronicle, which lin- 

fjred out an existence of twenty months, before the Bible Union was formed, and, 
om its limited circulation, was a loss to its owners. Many of the friends of the 
Bible Union, including some of its officers, thought that he would succeed better, 
if he would convert it into a weekly, which he did, about four months after the 
Bible Union was organized. He continued the weekly until Jan. 1st, 1855, when 
he sold it to Messrs. Church & Backus. The Bible Union never had any control 
of the paper, nor any responsibility for its management or its finances. Many of the 
managers and other friends of the Union, felt grieved at the manner in which its 
business was conducted and the tone of its editorials, especially during the last 
two years before Dr. Judd left it. Whether it was or was not a pecuniary loss to 
him or to. his partner in business, we have no means of knowing. But of this we 
are assured, that, with proper management it would have paid well. No religious 
paper with which we are acquainted, commenced under more favorable auspices. 
That Dr. Judd has a singular faculty of alienating friends, and that he has suc- 
cessfully exercised this faculty in the management of the New York Chronicle, all 
who had dealings with him know full well. * * * For more than two 
years before he left we were painfully convinced that from the manner in which 

* 1. The official reply of the Bible Union to Dr. Maclay, which was published in 
the New York Times of July 26th, 1856, and in the Bible Union Quarterly, of about 
the same date, over the signatures of Thos. Armitage, Wm H. Wyckoff, E. Parmly, 
E. S. Whitney, C. A. Buckbee, and S. Pier. 2. The official reply of the Union to 
my letter in the Times of Aug. 6th, 1856, which was likewise addressed to the Times, 
and was intended to be signed by the officers, as it says, " Some of the officers who 
sign this document, can testify," &c. ; but which was published : only in the Bible 
Union Department of the N. Y. Chronicle, where it appeared without any signa- 

f The book written by J.Edmunds and T. S. Bell, "on behalf of the BevifiiOB 
Association," and published at Louisville, in 1856. , ' . 


it was conducted, it was a decided detriment to the cause/' "Who can safely deal 
with such a man in business matters counected with revision? * * f * m 
The Board of the Bible Union could hare no comfort and no safety in continuing 
in its employ a man who assumes and acts upon such positions." "The attempt 
by a few ambitious spirits to mate the Bible Union subservient to their uses, has 
been promptly met and put down." " They [Drs. BreeMnridee, Denison, Aaams, 
Trimble, and Gordon] are standing before the community as the peddlers of the 
paltry slanders of a dismissed reviser of the Bible Union." " Dr. Judd was unwor- 
thy; to be continued as a reviser." " Such blasts, as Dr. Jutld blows upon Dr. Ma- 
clay's slogan." " Dr. Judd is the chief maehinator of all this war upon the Bible 
Union." " From January down to June Dr. Judd 4ept this committee examining 
into every conceivable charge he could invent. His target for perpetual elimina- 
tion was the Secretary j just as that functionary is the target of the pamphlet, and 
according to the testimony.of all other tnen who know him, NO PCREB MAN WTESTJFON THE 
EAKTH." " Dr. Judd himself could see nothing of the kind until he was degraded 
from a position he was unworthy to hold afflong the revisers of the Bible Union." 
"Dr. Judd became incensed against all who were engaged in his dismission from 
that Committee, and against all who approved it, declaring that he would not be 
put on a level with other revisers." " Dr. Judd was unworthy to be continued as 
a reviser." " Dr. Judd, after being dismissed from the confidence, the service and 
treasury of the Bible Union," &c. " "We feel confident that it is to ihe influence of 
Dr. OrrinB. Judd, a dismissed reviser from the Bible Union Booms, we are mainly 
if not wholly, indebted for the mendacious pamphlet issued under lie name of Drv 

" "Witness his behavior while a student at Hamilton, an editor of the New 
York Chronicle, and his whole course of conduct against the officers and the 
Board of Directors of tire Bible Union." 

"While I was absent at Georgetown, attending the anniversary exercises, and 
engaged in important denominational affairs, brethren Armitage and Baiter visited 
the Louisville Board, and converted them from their purpose to inquire further 
into the affairs and doings of the Bible Union." " I understand they left the im- 
pression on the Board that great forbearance has been exercised towards you : 
that for a long time your temper has been sour ; that you seem to be influenced 
by:ambition; that you have exhibited a- covetous spirit, and made exorbitant De- 
mands upon the Board, which they, were illy 'prepared toimeet; that, six month* 
before his death, the lamented Cone lost confidence in youj and predicted mis- 
chief to the Society from your influence ; that you treated with wanton contempt 
the authority of the Board, and the official action of its Committees," " Titey 
solemnly aver that you would give them no assurances that Matthew should be : 
done in one, two, or five years." W. W. Everts* 

. All these, except the last two paragraphs, are foundin the official docu- 
ments of the Bible Union and the Revision Association, over the names 
of Thos. Armitage, Wm. H. Wyckoff, E. Parmly, E. S. Whitney, C. A. 
Buckbee, S. Pier, J. Edmunds, and T. S. Bell. The last but one is 
found over the name of S. E. Shepard, in the Bible Union Department 
of the N. Y. Chronicle, which is published under the supervision of the 
" officers at the Rooms." 

I have carefully deliberated whether it is worth while to publish a- 
formal refutation of :these calumnies, The Genius of Aron has well said: 

, "The purest treasure mortal times afford 

( Is reputation-; that awayj 

Men' are but gilded loam, or painted 1 clay." 

And the Sage of Israel tells us that "a good name is rather to be cho- 
seti than great riches." How sacred; then, is the duty which an indi- 
Tidual owes to himself and^his^ friends, whe% from envy and malice, men/ 


like harpies, prey upon a priceless reputation, in the name of religion ! 
when the tongue of slander, which, to use the awful language of an 
Apostle, is "set on fire of hell," blackens with its infernal' soot and 
smoke the jewels of character which it cannot consume ! Nevertheless, 
it is sometimes the painful duty of an individual, when basely calumni- 
ated, to snffer in silence, lest an open vindication of personal injuries 
should inflict a greater evil upon important public interests. And if the 
effects of this detraction could be confined to me alone, I would make no 
reply. But as it is adapted, if not designed, to discredit whatever 
statement the ends of truth and justice may require me to make concern- 
ing the Bible Union, and thereby to shield the gross mismanagement of 
that Institution from public condemnation, I am constrained to vindicate 
myself from these foul aspersions, put forth under the official seal of the 
Bible Union and the Revision Association. For, when the highest powers 
of corporate Institutions are so prostituted before the public, as not only 
to defame the characters of individuals, but to dishonor the Institutions 
themselves, and defeat the very object for which all their powers were 
created, then forbearance ceases to be a virtue, and silence is sinful. 

To meet the general influence of these aspersions upon my character, 
I will first produce a chain of testimonies which even my accusers cannot 
gainsay ; after which their specific allegations against me will be sepa- 
rately refuted. 

Testimonial from the Faculty at Hamilton, Aug. 18, 1841. 

REV. F. "WAYLAND, D. D. , President of Brown University : 

DEAR SIB, I write you by request of the Faculty of this Institution, to intro- 
duce to your acquaintance our much esteemed friend and brother, Orrin B. Judd, 
who wishes to become a member of your next Senior Class. Mr. Judd would be 
glad to retain a nominal connection with this Institution, for reasons of a pecuni- 
ary character, and affecting, in his opinion, the prosecution of his theological 
course, after the close of the present year. There is nothing to prevent his being 
honorably dismissed from our Institution, if that were his desire ; and the Faculty 
will be pleased if you find it consistent to favor his designs. 

Mr. Judd is a member of our Senior Collegiate Class for the year just closed, 
and has held an honorable standing in it 

With very great respect, J. H. KAYMOND. 

' " Hamilton Lit & Theol. Inst. ) 
Aug. 18, 1841. ' J 

From Rev. J. 3. Maginnis, D. D. Aug. 24, 1841. 


Aug. 24, 1841. 

This note will introduce to your acquaintance Mr. Orrin B. Judd, a member of 
the Senior Class in our Literary Department. He is brother to our late lamented 
Judd, who has written so ably on the subject of Baptism. He is a young gentle- 
man of fine talents, and of persevering industry in study. As Prof. Conant will 
be absent for a year in Germany, Mr. Judd has concluded, with the other members 
of his class, to defer entering upon his theological studies till next year. He is 
anxious, therefore, to spend a year in Brown University, and enjoy for a while the 
instructions of a man, of whom he has heard much, and for whom he cherishes the 
highest veneration. 

Very sincerely and affectionately yours, 

Rev. F. WAYLAND. D, D. 


From the Baptist Church in Fabitis, Aug. 24, 1841. 

THIS may certify that the bearer, Bro. Orrin B. Judd, is a member of the Baptist 
Church in Fabius, Onondaga county. N. Y. We are happy in being able to say 
that Bro. Judd has our fullest confidence as a Christian brother, and has for some 
years past been more or less engaged in preaching the Gospel, while prosecuting 
a course of study at Hamilton, preparatory to a more full engagement in the 
Christian ministry, with the entire approbation of the brethren with whom he is 
united in Church fellowship. He is therefore affectionately commended, both as a 
Christian brother and as a Minister, to the kind regards and Christian affection of 
all who love our Lord Jesus in sincerity, wherever Divine Providence may cast 
his lot 



By Order of the Baptist Church, ) 
Fabius, Aug. 24, 1841. J 

From Rev. Francis Wayland, D. D. Aug. 27, 1842. 

This may certify that the bearer, Mr. Orrin B. Judd, a member of the Senior 
Class, having completed the studies of the Collegiate Course, in regular standing, 
is, at his own request, dismissed from Brown University. 


BROWN UNIVERSITY, Aug. 27, 1842. 


I send you the dismission which you request, though I sincerely regret that you 
should think it your duty to ask for it. I can imagine no reason why you should 
think such a course imperative, though I doubt not the purity of the motives 
which have led to it. Should you alter your determination, and let me know in 
time, I will with pleasure recommend you with your class. 

Accept the assurance of my sincere regard, and my best wishes for your pros- 

Yours, very truly, 


Mr. O. B. JUDD. 

From the Facility at Hamilton. Aug. 1844. 

The Faculty of Hamilton Literary and Theological Institution hereby certify- 
that Mr. O. B. Judd has completed, at this Institution, such a course of Literary 
and Scientific studies as is ordinarily pursued in the Colleges of the United States. 
He has^also completed our course of Theology. Having sustained a good moral 
.and religious character, he is now honorably dismissed. 

NATHL. KENDRICK, Prof. Sysi. Theol. 

J. S. MAGINNIS, Prof. Bib. TheoL 

T. J. CONANT. Prof. Eel. Sf Bib. Chit. % Inter. 

GEO. W. EATON, Prof. Oiv. Sf Ecdes. Hist. 

A. C. KENDRICK, Prof. Gr. Lang. Sf Lit. 

STEPHEN W. TAYLOR, Prof. Mat. Sf Nat. PW. 

JOHN F. RICHARDSON, Prof. Lot. Lan. Sf Lit. 

J. H. RAYMOND, Prof. Rhet. Sf Eng. Lang. 

P. B. SPEAR, Prof. Heb. 
HAMILTON, Aug. 1844. 

From the Faculty at Washington, D. C. Sept. 12, 1844. 

WE, the Curators, President, and Professors of Columbian College, in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia, testify that Orrin B. Judd, an ingenuous young man, has 


applied himself to the study of Literature and the Sciences with success ; having 
regularly and faithfully gone through with all the exercises of this Institution. 
Wherefore, by the authority vested in us, we have conferred upon him the first 
Degree in the Arts, and all the rights and privileges everywhere pertaining to the 
.same ; of which this Instrument, ratified with the seal of the College, and our sigr 
natures, may be for a testimony. 











JOEL S. BACON, President,' 

THOS. SEWALL. M.D., Path, et Prax. Med. 

WM. RUGGLES, A.M., Math, et Phil. Nat. Prof. 

H. LINDSLY, M.D., Art. Obstet. 

THOS. MILLER, M.D., Anat. et Physiol. 

J. M. THOMAS, M.D., Mat. Med. et Therap. 


J. B. CHAPLIN, A.M., Ling. Grcec. et Lot. Prof. 

CoLtEGE ButLWNCfS, Sept. 12, 1844. 

Prom the faculty at Hamilton. Aug. 1846. 

WE, the Curators and Professors of Madison University, certify that O. B. Judd* 
an ingenuous young man, of upright deportment, has applied himself diligently 
and successfully to the study of Literature and the Sciences, and to all the other 
duties of this Institution. Wherefore, by virtue of the authority committed to us, 
we have conferred upon him the Second Degree in the Arts, together with all the 
rights, privileges and honors everywhere pertaining to the same. Of which this 
parchment, with the College seal and our signatures, may be for a testimony. 
From the College Buildings, at our Annual Commencement, Aug. 1846. 

J. S. MAGINNIS. Bib. Theol. Prof. 

T. J. CONANT, Ling. Beb. Prof. 

GEO. W. EATON, Hist. Civ. Sf Eccks Prof. 

A. C. KENDRICK, Grcsc. Ling, et Lit. Prof. 

J. F. RICHARDSON, Lai. Ling, et Lit. Prof. 

3. H. RAYMOND, Prof. Kket. 8f Bell. Lett. 

P. B. SPEAR, Ling. Heb. Prof. - . 

Prom the Corporation of Madison University. Aug. 26, 1850. 

REV. 0. B. J0DD, 

I have the pleasure of communicating to you the following resolution of the- 
Board of Trustees of MADISON UNiVERsrrT, passed at a meeting held in Hamilton, 
Aug. 22, 1850. 
Resolved, That Rev. ORRIN B. JUDD, A. M>> be and hereby is elected Professor of 

Greek in Madison University; 

HENRY TOWERj President of the Board, 
P. B. SPEAR, Secretary. 
Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1850. 

I remain, dear brother, sincerely yours, 


Prom Rev. S. H. Cone, D.D., and Wav H. Wyckofil Apr. 19, 1853. 

The undersigned have carefully examined all the matters referred to in the fore- 
going article, and find nil the certificates and letters embraced in it to be exact. 


aid" faithful copies of genuine original documents. We consider them as placing 
the character and standing of Bro. ORRIN B. JUDD above reproach, and as fully 
proving that the Faculty at Hamilton cherished implicit confidence in him, and 
we regard the attack made upon him by the editor of the New York Recorder, and 
endorsed by the editor of the Western Watchman, as totally destitute of even the 
shadow of justification. "We cannot sufficiently express our disgust at such mali- 
cious and wicked attempts to injure private character. 

S. H. CONE, 
New York, Apr. 19, 1853. 

From the Faculty at Hamilton. May 5, 1853. 


DEAR BROTHER : It is our duty, in compliance with your request, to testify to 
the genuineness of the Diploma of 1844, as published in the New York Chronicle, 
vol. iii., No. 29. 

That instrument is your property, and you are fairly entitled to all the advan- 
tages that it is adapted to secure. It was intended to denote unequivocally, the 
confidence of the Faculty in the soundness of the faith and morals of the pupil on 
whom it was conferred. 

This species of document, presents the final balance of the pupil's account with 
the government of the Institution, of which he has been a member j it is virtually 
sworn to by the Faculty ; they cannot contradict it without virtual perjury. 

By order and in behalf of the } ' 



Prom Rev. J. L. Waller, LL.D. April 10, 1854. 

NASHVILLE, Tenn., April 10, 1854. 

* * * * I felt that this explanation was due alike to you and 
myself. For there is no man living whose good opinion I would more regret to 
lose, than yours. Fraternally yours. 


Prom Rev. Si H- Cone, D.D. July 31, 1854. 


July 31, 1854. 

I wrote to Brother Buckbee last week, and requested him to obtain your help, 
if possible, for the first Lord's day of August, in the First Church. It will be our 
regular Communion season. You are well known to the church, and your labors 
are acceptable. So fail me not, I pray you, in this thing. 

Mrs. C. and myself are getting a little stronger. I preached yesterday, and 
the prcrious Lord's day once, to large audiences. 

Your affectionate* Brother in Bible bonds, 
/ - " S. H. CONE. - 


' " - 

Prom the Corporation of Madison University. Aug. 1854. 


I have the : pleasure of communicating to you the following ACT OB-MADISON 


Resolved, That the DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF LAWS (LL.D.)i be conferred on Rev. 
O. B. JUDD, of New York City. 

Done at the University Buildings, in Hamilton. N. T.. on Commencement Day, 
the sixteenth of August, A.D. 1854. 

Secretary of the Corporation. 

Prom Rev. D. E. Thomas, Editor. 

The honorary title of LL.D. was conferred on Rev. Orrin B. Judd, editor of the 
New York Chronicle, at the late Commencement of Madison University. If there 
oe any honor connected with this title, Bro. Judd amply deserves it. Christian 

Prom Rev. J. L. "Waller, LL.D., Editor. 

HONOR TO WHOM HONOR is DUE. Rev. O. B. Judd has recently had conferred 
upon him, by the Madison University, New York, the degree of LL.D. Mr. Judd 
is justly entitled to that honor, as he is one of the best and most critical scholars, 
as well as strongest and ablest writers. Western Recorder, Aug. 30, 1854. 

The specific allegations made against me by officers of the Bible Union 
and the Revision Association, will now be disposed of in a succinct his- 
tory of my connection with the revision enterprize. 

When this enterprize, as subsequently undertaken by the Amer- 
ican. Bible Union, originated, I was pastor of a church in this city ; 
at the same time editing the .ZVeio York Monthly Chronicle. Being invi- 
ted, by my esteemed friend and brother, Rev. Dr. Everts, to attend a 
meeting of the Board of the Am. and For. Bible Society, in which the 
subject of revision was under discussion, I met with them and became 
satisfied that a careful revision of our common version by competent 
scholars was not only right, but vastly important ; so that from a con- 
viction of truth and a sense of duty, I at once heartily and openly 
espoused the cause. I advocated it in the meetings of the Board and 
the Society. I wrote- the first articles in favor of it, in the New York 
Recorder. And when the columns of that paper, like those of every 
other religious journal in the Northern States, east of the Alleghany 
mountains, were closed against any further discussion of the subject, I 
gave up nearly the whole space of my Monthly Chronide, as its pages 
now show, for the advocacy of that cause ; whereby its circulation waa 
greatly curtailed, and its prosperity permanently checked. But this 
service and sacrifice for the Revision cause, instead of being credited to 
me, are now used by the officers of the Bible tJnion to injure my repu- 

With a view, it would seem, to represent me as having been ineffi- 
cient and unsuccessful generally, the officers of the Bible Union say : 

' " Mr. Judd was editor and half-proprietor of the New York Monthly Chronide, 
which lingered out an existence of twenty months, before the Bible Union was formed* 
and, from its limited circulation, was a loss to its owners." 

But the following testimonies will show the estimation in which that 
periodical was held previous to the revision controversy, by those best 
qualified to judge in the case: 


" THE NEW YORK CHRONICLE. We have received the first number of this new- 
magazine, edited by Eev. 0. B. Judd. The editor is well known in Connecticut, 
as an able writer, and also as a very worthy minister of the gospel. No one who 
knows him, will donbt his ability to conduct a periodical of this character." Chris- 
tian Secretary. 

" THE NEW YORK CHRONICLE. The first number of this new work is before us, 
and we are happy to be able to speak in terms of high commendation of its char- 
acter. Its contents are rich, varied, and judiciously arranged, and it- strikes us 
that the Chronicle is destined to furnish what has been long desirable." Michigan 
Christian Herald. 

" The New York Chronicle is edited by the Eev. OrrinB. Judd, a gentleman whose 
talents and acquirements will enable him to give great value to this publication." 
'Christian Union. 

" Ministers and church members generally have felt the necessity of some such 
periodical, that should furnish a compendium of all the most important religious 
and secular intelligence from this land and foreign lands, in a convenient form for 
ready examination and future reference, to fill up a gap occupied by no other 
And the name of the editor is an ample pledge that it would be faithfully done." 
New York Baptist Register. 

" The February number of this new monthly and ' permanent repository of reli- 
gious intelligence,' has reached us, with a manifest improvement on the first issue." 

" The New York Chronicle for March has come to hand, still more improved than 
either of the preceding, and impressing one still more with the conviction of its 
present and future usefulness." Ibid.; 

"It is a useful sphere which Mr. Judd proposes to occupy, and of his ability to 
perform the undertaking with distinguished success we have no doubt."- New York 

" The Chronicle is well edited and beautifully printed." -ZV. Y. Journal of Com- 

" I regard the plan as excellent, and the work as filling a desideratum in our 
denominational literature. I have no doubt you will make it an important publi- 
cation for the Baptists of the present day, and still more so for those of future 
generations." .Sea. A. C. Kendrick, D.D., Prof, in Madison University. 

" The New York Chronicle appears well. It will-command respect ; and from the 
important field which it is to occupy it must secure patronage. If conducted as it 
now promises, it must be regarded by every intelligent minister as almost indis- 
pensable." Rev. Geo. W. Eaton, D.D., Prof, in Madison University. 

" The Chronicle for July, is one of the best of this excellent work. It is seldom 
indeed we have read anything of equal interest." Mich. Chris. Herald. 

" The New York Chronicle for December, is equal in interest to its predecessors. 
The Chronicle is as well worth its subscription price for present use, as any other 
publication ; but its great recommendation is that it possesses a character and 
qualities which will cause its value to increase with age." Ibid. 

/'THE NEW YORK CHROXICLE. This monthly is edited, with decided ability and 
with remarkable industry, by Rev. Orrin B. Judd ; and, if we must speak the 


whole truth, it is the neatest and best work of the sort which we receive. The 
editor's style is easy, lucid, and fair ; and his industry is truly commendable. The 
first year of the Chronicle is just completed, making a volume of 384 pages, to 
which is added a full ' index of the subjects.' The price of this work is one dollar, 
and the engravings are WORTH FIVE TIMES THE MONEY. Alabama Baptist Advocate. 

In the summer of 1850, I was elected to the Professorship of the 
Greek Language and Literature in Madison University, which my 
ardent love for that noble Institution, my own Alma Mater, strongly 
inclined me to accept, and which, but for the cause of revision, I prob- 
? ably should have accepted. But the earnest dissuasions of Dr. Cone, 
I Dr. Armitage, Mr. Wyckoff, and many others, who regarded the estab- 
1 lishment of a weekly paper as exceedingly important, if not absolutely 
| indispensable to the successful prosecution of the revision enterprize, led 
Ime to the conclusion that my humble efforts were more needed in this 
pace than in Hamilton, where another equally competent could be more 
pasily obtained. I accordingly declined the Professorship, and agreed 
to resign my pastoral charge, stop my monthly magazine at the close of 
the current volume, December, 1850, and give my entire services, with- 
out remuneration, as editor of a weekly paper for three years, on the 
assurance that some other person or persons would be found to assume 
the financial responsibility, and conduct the business department of the 
paper. In pursuance of this distinct understanding, the first number of 
the New York Weekly Chronicle, bearing my name as its editor, was 
issued before any such business arrangements had been consummated, as 
Mr. Wyckoff and others were extremely anxious and urgent to have it 
out with the first Anniversary of the Bible Union. Then, after all this 
had been done, when it was too late for me tp draw back, the assuran- 
ces of coadjutors and pecuniary provision failed", leaving to me alone, and 
absolutely unaided,* the Herculean task of establishing a weekly news- 
paper, for the avowed object of advocating a cause already proscribed 
and" condemned by men in high places, and, at their bidding, by the 
popular voice, throughout the length and breadth of our land, as not 
only evil in itself, but dangerous in all its tendencies ; the almost pre- 
sumptuous undertaking of trying to establish such a paper, in this city, 
under the shadow of the most powerful rival, and against the combined 
opposition of the religious press, throughout the country an undertak- 
ing pronounced by the N. Y. Observer as presumptuous as that of bridg- 
ing the Atlantic. Yet by the blessing of God, as I believe, that under- 
taking was crowned with success ; so that the New York Chronicle, when 
I left it in 1854, had a large list of subscribers. For upwards of three 

* A show of assistance was made by a few individuals subscribing each for sev- 
eral copies for a term of years* Thus, "Wm^ H. Wyckoff agreed to take twenty cop- 
ies for five years ; and .when he had received either directly or through-agents of the 
Bible Union and others,, and transferred to me,, the names of twenty subscribers 
with their money, he regarded.bimself as having fulfilled the engagement. Since 
that he has not, to my knowledge, so much as paid for his own copy or copies; 
supplying himself from- ihose furnished to the Rooms at the^ expense of the Bible 


years and alialf, I labored according to the best of my ability in that 
paper, which was established for the special benefit of the Bible Union, 
and iriamly devoted to its support. That an incalculable amount of 
effective service was gratuitously performed by me for the Bible Union 
through that paper, is well known to the officers and patrons of that 

Yet all this is now used by those officers to injure my reputation. 
They represent me as struggling unsuccessfully to sustain the Monthly 
Chronicle, &nd would have it understood that for my sake they advised me 
to change it into a weekly ; which they say I did. Then they allege 
that with this I damaged the Union. Thus : 

"Many of the friends of the Bible Union, including some of its officers, thought 
that he would succeed better^ if he would convert it into a weekly, which he did 
about four months after the Bible Union was organized." * * * "Many 
of the managers and other friends of the Union felt grieved at the manner in 
which its business was conducted, and the .tone of its editorials." * * * 
"For more than two years before he left, we were painfully convinced that, from 
the manner in which it was conducted, it was a decided detriment to the cause." 

Let it be observed, that, so far from the Monthly being changed into 
the Weekly Chronicle, the former was published three months after the 
commencement of the latter. As to the character and conduct of the 
Weekly Chronicle, let the following witnesses speak : 

" NEW YORK WEEKLY CHRONICLE. We may not close this Report without allu- 
ding to a circumstance that is likely to have a permanent effect upon the pros- 
perity- of the Union the establishment of a religious paper at the seat of opera- 
tions, which, it is understood, will be free to publish our communications, and, 
when occasion requires, to sustain the advocacy of our principles. In consequence 
of the want of such facilities, the expenses, during the short four months of our 
existence, have been uncommonly great. * * * Being cut off from all the 
usual facilities of the press, we were obliged to have recourse to the issue of pam- 
phlets and circulars to an extent which we trust will never again be necessary. 

* * * The advantages of a weekly paper, in the support of such an In- 
stitution, are immeasurably superior." By Wm. H. Wyckoff. 1st Report of Bible 
Union, p. 29. 

"The New York Weekly Chronicle is the title of the paper which the Bible Union 
has established for the purpose of advocating its interests. Rev. O. B. Judd is its 
editor." Christian Secretary, Oct. 18, 1850. 

"We have received the first number of the New York Chronicle, a medium-sized 
weekly sheet, to be devoted mainly to the advocacy of the principles and policy 
of the American Bible Union. It is edited by Rev. 0. B. Judd. Though we can- 
not in every respect sympathize with Brother Judd in his views, we would most " 
cheerfully appreciate his conscientiousness and ability." New York Recorder. Oct. 
16, 1850. 

"In the last number of the New York Recorder we find the above, which seems 
to be written as a congratulation of the existence and prosperity of this paper, as 
the organ of the American Bible Union." Christian Chronicle, Oct. 23, 1850. 

'I NEW YORK WEEKLY CHRONICLE, is the title of the first number of a paper 
which bears the name of that indomitable advocate of the 'New Version,' the Rev. 
O. B. Judd, as editor. We have no doubt, that if zeal and industry can make a 


v . 

popular paper, Bro. Judd's subscription list will increase with astonishing rapid- 
ity. Southern Baptist, Oct. 23, 1850. 

" NEW YORK "WEEKLY CHRONICLE. "We have received, within a few days, the 
first and second numbers of this new paper, edited by Bro. O. B. Judd. It is a 
neat little sheet, chiefly devoted to the advocacy of the cause of the Bible Union. 
The competency of the esteemed editor to make an imposing plea in behalf of any 
cause he may espouse, is not to be called in question." Baptist Register, Oct. 24, 
1850. ' 

"New YORK, Nov. 12, 1851. 
" DEAR BRO. JODD,- ******* 

" Before the existence of the Chronicle, an impunity in this respect [of misrep- 
resentation] was enjoyed by editors opposed to the Union and its principles. Now, 
the circulation of your paper is surpassed by few in our denomination, and we 
rejoice that both sides can be freely heard through its columns. 

" WM. H. WYCKOFF, Car. Sec," 

" I believe the Chronicle is destined to be one of the most efficient and widely 
influential religious papers in the denomination. I feel deeply interested in its 
success. I admire the talent and tact with which it has been conducted thus far. 

" Very truly yours. 

"Hamilton, Nov. 14, 1851." 

" The Chronicle has been, from its commencement, the consistent and efficient ad- 
vocate of the principles of the Union ; and has accomplished, and still continues to 
accomplish, a great amount of good, for which the Union is justly grateful. 

WM. H. WYCKOFF, Cor. Sec. 
" New York, Nov. 3, 1854." f 

The last of these extracts was written and published by Mr. Wyckoff, 
over his own name, less than two months before the Chronicle passed 
from Judd & Maclay to Church & Backus. And yet the same Wm. H. 
Wyckoff, Cor. Sec. of the Am. Bible Union, now unites with other 
officers of that Institution, in declaring that, for more than two years 
before I left the paper, they were painfully convinced that, from the 
manner in which it was conducted, it was " a decided detriment to the 
cause." Upon this no comment is needed. The man who could write 
the one then, and the other now, has himself furnished the public with 
the unmistakable data of a righteous verdict, from which there is no 

At the Anniversary of the Philadelphia Bible Union, Nov. 18, 1854, 
Dr. Armitage being present, it was unanimously 

Resolved, That the Neio York Chronicle is worthy of the most liberal patronage, 
both for its able advocacy of faithful versions of God's word, and for its indepen- 
dent and impartial treatment of other great questions of the day. 

The following was written by. JAMES EDMUNBS, Cor. Sec. Rev. Asso- 
ciation, upon my leaving the Chronicle at the beginning of 1855 : 

"Every friend of revision would regret the retirement of Rev. 0. B. JUDD from 
the chair editorial, were they not assured that his valuable services are to be se- 


cured in another department of the great work. No firmer friend of straight-for"- 
ward honesty, no more determined enemy of party trickery and political manage- 
ment iu religious matters ; no one more ready to sacrifice personal ease to a great 
work for the public good, have we known, than OKRIST B. JUDD." 

Besides the incalculable amount of labor performed for the Union 
through the columns of the -ZV. Y. Chronicle, I wrote numerous elabo- 
rate documents in advocacy of the revision cause, at the special request 
of its leading friends. Of these it is proper to mention the following : 
An Address on "A revised version of the English Scriptures ;" the 
" Constitution of the American Bible Union ;" together with a consid- 
erable portion of the accompanying " Address to the Public ;" a " Re- 
view of Dr. Williams' Pastoral Letter," vindicating Messrs. CONE and 
WYCKOFF from the withering rebukes of his powerful pen ; an " Ad- 
dress on the Translation of JBaptizo," before the Revision Association 
at Memphis, Tenn. ; a "Reply to Dr. Williams," in the correspondence 
between him and the Bible Union ; an " Address on Revision or no 
Revision," before the Philadelphia Bible Union ; an " Address on the 
Practicability of Revision," before the Saratoga Bible Union ; an Ad- 
dress on the " History of the Revision Enterprize," before the American 
Bible Union ; an Address on the " Duty of Christians to procure and 
circulate pure versions of the Holy Scriptures," before the Revision As- 
sociation at Nashville, Tenn. 

All these, with numerous other papers of a similar character, were 
written, delivered, and most of them put in print, for the American 
Bible Union, while I was receiving no salary from any source, but was, 
on the contrary, supporting a weekly paper for the same cause, which 
cost me, over and above all its receipts, nearly $5,000 ; about $1,350 
in cash over and above all that I have received, in salary or otherwise, 
for my services for the Bible Union. 

Thus, more than six years of the most arduous and exhausting labors 
of my life have been entirely devoted to this enterprize, all in compliance 
with the importunity of the officers and other friends of the Bible Union ; 
making not less than $10,850 gratuitously contributed by me to this 
enterprize ; to all which the officers say : 

" This estimate of his own merits and of the value of his labors so far exceeds 
that of reasonable men, that .the Board of the Bible Union and he will probably 
never become reconciled in opinion upon such subjects." 

The injustice of this official detraction will appear most fully, when 
compared with the following estimates of impartial, " reasonable, men" : 
In an account of the Bible Convention at Memphis, Tenn., April 6th, 
1852, the Daily Appeal, of that city, gave unsought the following edito- 
rial notice : 

" Eev. Mr. JDDD, of New York, then took the stand, and, in a speech, which 
would not have been tedious had it been double its actual length, advocated the 
reading of the Baptist theologians in relation to those passages of Scripture which 
bear upon their creed. Mr. Judd, we need not say, is widely known as one of the 
most profound scholars of the day, and he devotes it all to the explanations which 


he believes apposite to the true intent of the Bible's language. His style is pure ; 
never running off into extravagance, or mere declamation ; but making every sen- 
tence tell upon the point he discusses. His mind is eminently logical. He goes 
from step to step, in his process of demonstration, with as much precision and 
deliberation as one ascends a difficult height ; making himself sure of his footing 
on each movement before he attempts another." 

The Bible Convention which I had the honor of addressing in Perm 
Yan, on behalf of the Bible Union, July 6th, 1854, passed the follow- 
ing : 

Resolved, That the thanks of this meeting be tendered to Rev. 0. B. JDDD for the 
able and interesting Address with which he has favored us, and that the Commit- 
tee of Arrangements request a copy for publication. 

In an extended editorial notice of my Address before the Baltimore 
Revision Society, November 6th, 1854, the Daily Sun, of that city, 
says : 

" The Rev. Dr. JCDD, of New York, was then introduced, and delivered a very 
interesting Address. * * * The subject was urged with much ability, 
and the distinguished speaker was listened to throughout with great attention." 

Speaking of the Reply which I wrote to. Dr. Williams for the Bible 
Union, Win. H. Wyckoff, Cor. Sec., in his 3d Annual Report, p. 39, 
says : 

" When, therefore, our Reply to Dr. Williams appeared, the demand was, on such 
a subject, beyond all precedent. The more that Reply has been read, the greater 
has been its effect. It has removed objections in minds which never before could 
be reached ; and has added multitudes of converts to the ranks of revision. Its 
effect has not yet subsided, nor is it likely to subside except in the course of 

Now, for all these Addresses and other documents, which I prepared, 
and for all the labor performed by me, for the Bible Union, beyond the 
work of translation, I never asked nor expected the least remuneration. 
Yet, at a meeting of the Board of the Bible Union, held December 18, 
1854, while I was absent, these gratuitous labors, though not fully com- 
pensated, were distinctly recognized and acknowledged by the following 
act of that body : 

Resolved, That, in compensation for the services of the Rev. O. B. Judd, in ad- 
vocating the revision of the English Scriptures, by the American Bible Union, and 
of the heavy expense which he has incurred in personal agency for the Union, for 
this object, we appropriate to him one thousand dollars^ and pass the same to the 
account of the revision of the English Scriptures. 

In the fall of 1852, I entered into an agreement with the Board of 
the Bible Union to revise the common English version of a portion of 
the New Testament. The officers now insinuate that I solicited such an 
engagement. They say : 

"On the 29th of October, 1852, Rev. 0. B. Judd expressed his willingness in 


writing to revise the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, in conjunction with Rev. 

, for the sum of $1,000 for each Gospel, for the services of both revisers." 

Now the truth is, I never sought employment of any kind from the 
Bible Union, and least of all, the delicate and difficult work of trans- 
lating the Holy Scriptures. The following letter shows how my atten- 
tion was first called to this subject : 

New York, Oct. 23d, 1852. J 
MY DEAR BROTHER : The Board having passed the following resolution, | 

Resolved, That the Gospels of Matthew and Mark be assigned for revision to! 
Rev. Duncan 'R. Campbell', LLD., President of Georgetown College, and Rev.\ 
Orrin B. Judd, of New York, conjointly, V 

It becomes my duty to inquire, on behalf of the Board and the Committee on . 
Versions, whether you are willing to undertake the revision of the books men- 
tioned, in conjunction with Dr. Campbell 5 and if so willing, what compensation 
you will require. for your services? 

Yours, respectfully and affectionately, 

Cor. Sec. 

This appointment was declined by Dr. Campbell, for want of time ; 
but, in November, 1852, I acceded to the repeated solicitations of the 
officers of the Union, and agreed to revise the translation of Matthew 
for $1,000 ; undertaking the work in connection with rny editorial du- 
ties. In the spring of 1854, after I had bestowed considerable labor 
upon the work, and received on account of it $350, I was urged by the 
same persons to resign the editorial chair, and devote myself wholly to 
the business of revision ; which I finally agreed to do, on condition that 
the Bible Union would pay for the revision matter published in the 
Chronicle at the rate of $1,000 per annum. The officers of the Union 
assured me that this condition should be performed ; and a resolution 
was accordingly passed and put on record by the Committee on Yersions, 
recommending such an appropriation to be made by the Board to the 
New York Chronide. But before the Board met, Mr. Wyckoff induced 
the members of that Committee to consent that the form of the resolu- 
tion might be so far changed as not to mention the name of the Chron- 
ide, in order, as he said, to avoid the jealousy of other papers. And to 
this nominal change my consent was given with the expressed under- 
standing that it should make no difference with the appropriation, and 
upon the explicit assurance of Mr. Wyckoff that by the proposed ver- 
bal change no alteration in the effect of the resolution was intended. 
The resolution as altered was then recorded, in immediate connection 
with the original form, and was so passed by the Board, June 1th, 1854. 
The fact that Mr. Buckbee, who acted as Recording Secretary of the 
Board, and as Assistant Treasurer, paid to the proprietors of the Chron- 
ide, fully and promptly, two, if not three, equal monthly instalments of 
this $1,000 appropriation, puts the original design of that provision be- 
yond all reasonable doubt. If, however, any further corroboration of 


ray statement is needed, it will be found in the following, from the Hon. 
Win. IS. Maclay : 

" I was cognizant of an act of the Board of the Bible Union, passed June 7th, 
185-i. authorizing the annual expenditure of $1.000 for the publication of revision 
matter, &c., in newspapers and periodicals ; and I am sure it was well understood 
at that time, at least by the proprietors of the Nao York Chronicle, and the Record- 
ing Secretary of the Boai'd, that said sum was to be paid to the Chronicle in equal 
monthly instalments ; as was done for two months in succession by the Assistant 
Treasurer. W. B. MACLAY." 

After Mr. Buckbee had thus paid to the proprietors of the Chronicle 
two or three monthly instalments of $83,33 each, in pursuance of the 
above appropriation, he was forbidden by Mr. Wyckoff to pay any more ; 
of which I was not apprised till about two mouths had elapsed, sup- 
posing it was being paid and applied on deficits against the Chronicle. 
Having increased my sacrifices to the full extent of my ability, and 
being thus suddenly embarrassed by one against whose unwarrantable 
interference the act of the Board proved no protection, I at once deter- 
mined to charge the "Union for the large amount of matter which had 
been published for 'it by authority in the Chronicle, during the four years 
preceding, in addition to the small amount already paid, the sum of 
$1,000, for which a bill was presented. Its payment was strenuously 
opposed by Mr. Wyckoff, as extorsive, but strongly advocated by Dr. 
Cone, as eminently just. On a motion of the opposition it was referred 
back to the Committee on Finance, with instruction to demand a bill of 
items, dates, &c. In reply to this demand, I stated that the ground, as 
well as the occasion, of our claim, was well known to the Board, and that 
under the embarrassment so cruelly caused, I could not submit to any 
additional oppression, and that unless the money should be paid with- 
out further ceremony or delay, a much larger bill of items would have to 
be settled in a Court of Justice. Whereupon the amount was paid by 
order of the Board from the treasury of the Union. In reference to 
this the officers now charge me with threatening to sue Dr. Cone. But 
the above is the substance of all that I ever said about suing the Union, 
and I am sure that Dr. Cone's name was not mentioned in this connec- 
tion. The charge, as now made, seems intended to excite the feelings 
of Dr. Cone's friends against me ; a device which, for tact and temper, 
is eminently characteristic of its author. 

It was in compliance with the urgent solicitations of Messrs. Wyckoff, 
Armitage, and others, that I consented to leave the editorial chair and 
confine myself to the business of revision, and the amount of my salary 
was first proposed by them. The terms of my engagement were fixed 
by the following resolution of the Board, passed May 3d, 1854 : 

Resolved, That we authorize the Committee on Versions to make an arrangement 
with Rev. O.B. Judd to devote his time and attention exclusively to the business of * 
revision, and the passing of parts through the press as they shall severally be pre- 
pared, at a salary not to exceed $1,500 per annum. 

Now let it be observed that, in making this new arrangement, it was 


proposed by the officers themselves, that $350, the amount already 
paid to me on account, should be considered a compensation for the work 
already done ; and the fact that then, in May, 1854, the Board chose 
to cancel their contract with me for the job, and re-engage me to com- 
plete the same work by the year, proves their satisfaction with my labors 
and compensation up to that time. 

In accordance with this resolution, a new arrangement was made ; 
my former engagement to revise the translation of Matthew by the job 
was given up by mutual consent, and it was agreed that, under the new 
arrangement, I should complete the revision of Matthew, and at the 
same time devote whatever attention might be required in "passing the 
parts through the press, as they should severally be prepared." 

But on a subsequent record of the Committee, a resolution, written 
and entered by Mr. WyckofF, represents my engagement as for one year 
from June 1st, 1854. The verbal variation of this resolution from the 
order of the Board was noticed at the time ; but I had then no suspi- 
cion of any " sharp practice," as lawyers term it, by an officer of the 
Bible Union, and it was allowed to pass. But the officers, at least, 
know very well that the engagement was mutually understood, as 
extending beyond the limits of one or two years ; and no ex partc testi- 
mony will convince an impartial public that the purposes of that en- 
gagement, as described in the resolution of the Board, contemplated 
any such limits. " The business of revision and the passing of parts 
through the press as they shall severally be prepared," in the language 
of the resolution of the Board, pointed unmistakably to a work which 
was to terminate only with the printing of the last part of the revision 
that should be prepared. ^ Such was the distinct understanding at the 
time, else I should never have made such an engagement. Besides, the 
fact that my salary was regularly paid for twelve months after the expi- 
ration of the first year, without any new contract, or renewal of my 
engagement in any shape whatever, proves that the officers, having 
charge of the treasury, understood my first engagement to be for more 
than one year. 

Now, in reference to this engagement the officers allege that, 

t " Notwithstanding the express stipulation of the Board, that he should 'devote 
his time and attention exclusively to the work of revision, and the passing of the 
parts through the press, as they shall severally be prepared,' he did, from the 1st 
of June, 1854, to the 1st of January, 1855 seven months of the time in which he 
drew his full salary as a reviser edit and publish the New York Chronicle, and 
keep its pecuniary accounts." 

If this were true, it would not be just to make it the ground of such 
a charge after the lapse of two years of uncomplaining silence. Besides, 
it would inculpate the officers who paid the salary more deeply than the 
receiver of it. But it lacks ah 1 the essential elements of truth. The in- 
consistency of the statement alone disproves it. For, in another part 
of the same paper, the officers say : 

" Money cannot be taken from the Treasury except by the Treasurer's .check, 
and this is never given except upon the written warrant of the Assistant Treas- 


urer. The warrants are made out in accordance with the acts of the Board, which 
are certified to the Treasurer by the Minutes of the Board." 

Now who is prepared to believe that, with the treasury so guarded, 
a reviser, that had spent his time iu editing a paper, could for seven suc- 
cessive months have drawn his full salary as a reviser ? But to settle 
this matter, I have the following testimony of Hon. Wm. B. Maclay, 
who himself edited the Chronicle from June 1st, 1854, to January 1st, 
1855 : 

"Rev. 0. B. JCDD, LL.D. : It must have been well known to persona connected 
with the New York Chronicle and the Biblo Union Rooms, that from June 1st, 1854, s 
to January 1st, 1855, that paper, though published in the name of the firm, was 
edited by me, and its pecuniary accounts were kept partly by clerks employed for 
the purpose, and partly by Rev. C. A. Buckbee. I take the liberty of adding that 
I believe your time and attention were, during that period, exclusively devoted 
to the revision." 

Again, the officers of the Bible Union say that, 

"At Dr. Judd's request, Mr. was employed to aid him in the revis- 
ion of Matthew; and from January 1st, 1854, till August 1st, 1854, seven months, 

Mr. labored upon tbat gospel, at a cost to the Bible Union of $583 


This statement is contrary to the facts in the case. The gentleman 
referred to is Edward Maturin, a graduate of Trinity College, Dublin. 
The only act of the Board in relation to the sphere of his employment 
as a reviser, ia the following, passed December 7th, 1853 : 

Resolved, That EDWAED MATURIN, Esq., be employed on. the revision of Mark at 
a salary of $1,000 per annum. 

It is certain, therefore, that Matthew was never assigned nor author- 
ized to be assigned to Mr. Maturin by the Board ; and the officers say 
the Committee on Versions " cannot appoint a reviser," and " cannot 
assign a portion for revision, unless specially authorized." By whom, 
then, was Mr. Maturin employed on Matthew 7 The officers also affirm 
that, " money cannot be taken from the treasury except by the Treas- 
urer's check ;" that "this is never given except upon the written war- 
rant of the Assistant Treasurer ; " and that " the warrants are made 
out in accordance with the ads of the, Board, which are certified to the 
Treasurer by the Minutes of the Board" How, then, could $583 33 be 
paid to Mr. Maturin for his revision of Matthew, which was never author- 
ized nor recognized by any " acts of the Board ? " The only true ac- 
count to be given of this, is, that it was all arranged by Mr. Wyckoff, 
without any authority from the Board, and the money was paid to Mr. 
Maturin, as thousands of dollars have been disbursed by the "officers at 
the Rooms," without any reference whatever to the " Minutes of the 

As to his being employed " to aid me," in the revision of Malthtw, it 


should be observed that I was at work by the job till June, 1854, and 
it is absurd to' suppose that the Bible Union employed a man in Janu- 
ary, 1854, on a salary to aid me in performing a job which I had agreed 
to do for a stipulated sum. But to put the case in its true light, I give 
below Mr. Maturin's own testimony : 

" Mr. JUDD, SMV 

" In answer to your respectful inquiry, I must say that I was employed by the 
Bible Union to make an independent revision, and never regarded myself as an 
assistant reviser. 



The officers now charge me with improperly retaining my place in the 
Committee on Yersions, after my appointment as a reviser. They say : 

"He became a reviser after he was appointed on that Committee, but did not, 
from any sense of delicacy, see fit to resign his place- upon it after his appointment 
as such, while his presence embarrassed its members more than once, in their de- 

Now, as to this, the truth is, I was first appointed on that Committee 
in June, 1850, when the Bible TJnion was organized. I was reappointed 
in October following, and again in October, 1851. Then, on the 29th 
of September, 1852, at the last meeting of the Board before the Anni- 
versary of the TJnion, when my appointment as a member of the Com- 
mittee was to expire, I was appointed as a reviser ; which allowed me 
no opportunity to resign " from any sense of delicacy." Immediately 
after the Anniversary, in the organization of the new Board for the en- 
suing year, while I was under appointment as a reviser, I was again 
nominated by Dr. Cone, and appointed by the Board as a member of 
the Committee on Versions ; as also in October, 1853, and in October 
1854 ; being thus three times successively nominated by Dr. Cone, and 
appointed by the Board, a member of the Committee on Yersions, after 
my engagement as a. reviser. And during this time, Messrs. Armitage, 
Wyckoff, Parmly, Whitney, Buckbee, and Pier, who now allege this 
against me, that I became " a reviser after I was appointed on that 
Committee, but did not from any sense of delicacy see fit to resign," were 
themselves members of the Board, and so far from even suggesting any 
impropriety in my successive reappointments on that Committee, most 
of them were present when the appointments were made by a unani- 
mous vote of the Board. Whether, with a knowledge of these facts, 
which the author of this accusation, and most, if not all of those who 
endorsed it, certainly had, the above charge could be made with any 
sense of honor, or any regard for truth, I leave to the judgment of 
every candid reader. 

On this point, I will only add that, whenever anything came before 
the Committee in relation to myself, I always withdrew, unless request- 
ed by the Chairman to remain. I was, however, accustomed to exercise 
my own judgment, with all due deference to the opinions of others, in 
every important matter before the Committee ; and that my " presence 


embarrassed its members more than once in their deliberations," I have 
no doubt. I know, indeed, that in several instances I incurred the dis- 
pleasure of Mr. Wyckoff, by honestly opposing his views. Such was the 
case when he introduced his favorite project of making a new vernacular 
version for the Seneca Indians, which was carried, notwithstanding my 
opposition, in the Committee, but failed in the Board. And from the 
mortification and chagrin of that defeat, the Secretary seems to have 
never entirely recovered. Once after that, he consulted me about ano- 
ther project, and being told that I could not approve of it, he said : 
"I knew you would oppose it. You object to everything that I pro- 
pose ; " to which I replied, that his statement was not correct ; that I 
always approved of what I thought was right, and opposed what I be- 
lieved to be wrong, from whomsoever it might come. 

Again, the officers represent me as despising the memory of Dr. Cone. 
They say : 

"Dr. JUDD has even gone so far as to say before the Board, that the less refer- 
ence was made to that name (Dr. Cone's) in conducting our business, the better." 

The fact is this : it has been customary for the Secretary, ever since 
Dr. Cone's death, whenever he had any measure to carry, any opposition 
to overcome, or any responsibility to shun, to assert that Dr. Cone did, 
said or thought thus and so. For example, when Mr. Wyckoff was 
called on in the Committee of Investigation, to explain why he had had 
so many sets of stereotype plates of Dr. Conant's Revision made without 
authority from the Board, he said it was done by the advice of Dr. Cone. 
And when he wanted the Board to sanction a proceeding of the Com- 
mittee on Versions, he said that such was the policy of Dr. Cone. Just 
as the officers, in their reply to Dr. Maclay, say : 

" Drs. MACLAY and JUDD have taken up the gauntlet to oppose the whole policy 
inaugurated by Dr. Cone." 

It is true that I have repeatedly protested against such a use of Dr. 
Cone's name, because I deemed it unjust to him, as well as embarrassing 
to the Board. But never did I complain of a respectful and honorable 
mention of that noble-hearted man. While he lived no one venerated 
him more sincerely than I did ; and now that he is dead, I cherish his 
memory with unfaltering affection. I surely have never uttered a single 
word, nor felt a solitary emotion, in relation to him, either before or 
since his death, inconsistent with the most ardent friendship. 

I cannot believe that the officers of the Bible Union even so much as 
suspect me of the least unfriendly feeling towards Dr. Cone. The charge, 
I have no doubt, was made to prejudice his friends against me. 

As a counterpart to the above charge in relation to my feelings and 
conduct towards Dr. Cone, is the following, which the officers allege in 
respect to his feelings towards me : 

"After the painful circumstances connected with this afiair [the payment of the 
$1,000] Dr. Coue felt deeply wounded, and frequently alluded in these rooms to 
the unkind and ungrateful conduct which he experienced from that quarter, and 


declared that the Union would have great trouble with him [Dr. Judd] one of these 

All this is new to me. Dr. Cone is gone and cannot speak for him- 
self. The payment of the $1,000 was certainly advocated by him in the 
Board, as just. He never uttered a word, in my hearing, disapproba- 
tory of my conduct in the matter ; but, on the contrary, in our almost 
daily intercourse, up to the fatal hour of his last sickness, he always 
treated me with marked cordiality and friendship. Besides, I am told 
by John B. Durbrow, Esq., and other intimate friends of Dr. Cone, that, 
in conversations with them a short time before his death, he spoke of 
me in terms of high personal esteem and confidence. And I think no 
one who knew SPENCER H. CONE can believe he was capable of speaking 
against any man behind his back what he would not say to his face, or 
of talking "frequently" in the Bible Rooms against an absent brother, 
towards whom he was elsewhere expressing the utmost confidence and 
affection. The fact that these officers attribute to me feelings towards 
Dr. Cone, which I never had, prepares me to believe that the feelings 
they attribute to Dr. Cone towards me, were equally foreign to his heart. 
The following, from Rev. B. N". Leach, A.M., settles this point : 

DEAR BRO. JODD, In answer to your inquiries, I would say that, awhile after 
you presented the bill of $1,000 against the Bible Union, I was in Mr. "Wyckoff J s 
room, and heard him speak in the strongest terms against you, relative to said bill, 
what, if true, would destroy your moral and Christian character. Thinking such 
remarks unjust and injurious to the cause, I tried by kind suggestions to alter the 
tone of his feelings ; but this seemed only to increase his virulence. Believing- the 
cause, which had my sympathy, would suffer by such a course, I called on Dr. Cone 
the next morning. He expressed regret that the bill was presented in the way it icas. 
He said he had no doubt of Br. Judd's losing, but he was able to lose for such a 
cause. When I told him what the Secretary said, he expressed deep regret, and 
said it must be stopped. Said he, " I regard Br. Judd as my son , I love him as a 
son. I know him. He possesses an excellent spirit," <fcc. His expressions of con- 
fidence and esteem were so marked that I shall never forget them. He thanked 
me for calling ; I left with my mind relieved. I had subsequent conversations 
with Dr. Cone on this subject, and heard nothing from his lips in conflict with what 
he said in our first interview, as above stated. 

As ever, your brother. B. N. LEACH. 

Whether men, who are capable of making such charges, for such pur- 
poses, without any foundation in fact, can be regarded as the exemplars 
of the truth and righteousness, which they so zealously advocate, I leave 
all intelligent, candid readers to judge for themselves. 

From the time when the $1,000, already referred to, were paid to me 
by the Board of the Bible "Union, against the earnest opposition of 
Wm. H. Wyckoff, a mingled feeling of envy and revenge seemed to 
have taken possession of his heart ; gaining strength from every act and 
word put forth by me in the Committee, or the Board, or elsewhere, 
adverse to his wishes. Indeed, I have understood that Mr. WyckofPs 
inimical feeling towards me was rendered more intense by the groundless 
conjecture that my influence had been used to prevent the Corporation of 
Madison University from conferring upon him an Honorary Degree, for 
which there was an unsuccessful application of some years' standing. 

No good opportunity, however, for the gratification of that feeling. 
occurred until the death of Dr. Cone ; after which it seemed as if an 
insuperable barrier had been removed. It was soon arranged and set- 


tied by " the officers at the Rooms," as Dr. Armitage more than intima- 
ted in the Funeral Sermon of Dr. Cone, that Dr. Maelay should be the 
next President. And I was pleased with the project, because I thought 
the object was to honor that venerable man, and benefit the Bible cause ; 
although subsequent events compel me to believe that it was designed to 
make Dr. Armitage, as being Yice President, the actual President, 
while the nominal President, Dr. Maclay, should be kept travelling as 
an agent. 

Dr. Maclay was accordingly elected President ; and although urged 
by the Secretary to leave immediately on his. agency, he remained in 
this city until after the usual time for the first meeting of the Board ; 
at which the Standing Committees for the ensuing year were customa- 
rily appointed on nominations of the President. But for reasons not 
then explained by the Secretary, who had been accustomed to call the new 
Board together, the next week after the Anniversary, no meeting was 
called until the next month. In the meantime, Dr. Maclay left the city, 
in compliance with the continued solicitations of Mr. Wyckoff. The 
Board was then convened ; and Dr. Armitage being in the chair, nomi- 
nated the Committees, as previously determined by Mr. Wyckoff, and 
others at the Rooms. 

Only two material changes were made by the nominations of Dr. 
Armitage. Of these, one removed Geo. W. Abbe and S. R. elley 
from the Committee on Publication and Finance ; the other removed 
me from the Committee on Versions. Messrs. Abbe and Kelley had 
been members of the Finance Committee from the organization of the 
Bible Union ; and there can be no reasonable doubt that they would 
have been continued on that Committee, had they not incurred the dis- 
pleasure of Mr. Wyckoff, first, by repeatedly objecting to the disburse- 
ment of funds previous to any order of the Board, or any approval of 
the Finance Committee ; and finally by presenting to the Board my 
claim for $1,000, on account of the New York Chronicle, in opposition to 
his known wishes. 

Various reasons have been assigned at different times for the removal 
of these gentlemen. At one time it was because Mr. Abbe had said, as 
Rev. C. A. Buckbee testified, that the Committee was "all a farce." 
Again, it was, according to the Report of the Investigating Committee, 
because he had been so frequently absent from the meetings -of the Com- 
mittee. As to the first, this is the fact : The "officers at the Rooms" 
were accustomed to purchase articles for the Bible Union, at their dis- 
cretion, which neither the Board nor the Finance Committee had order- 
ed, and to pay for them out of the funds of the Union, and then to 
bring the bills for the same before the Finance Committee, to be ap- 
proved and recommended to the Board for payment. In reference to 
such proceedings, against; which Messrs. Abbe and Kelley had repeatedly 
protested, Mr. Abbe did say more than once, that, if business was to be 
done thus by the officers, the Finance Committee was a complete farce. 
Yet the "officers at the Rooms" know very well, that Mr. Abbe always 
regarded that Committee, in the exclusive exercise of its rightful pre- 
rogatives, as one of the most important Committees connected with the 


Board. As to the reason assigned by the Committee of Investigation, 
it should be observed, that it was never heard of until after several oth- 
ers had been given ; and it is sadly inconsistent with the fact that 
some of those retained on that Committee had been absent from more 
regular meetings during the previous year than Mr. Abbe. Indeed, it 
must be admitted that Messrs. Abbe and Kelley were among the most 
able, faithful and prompt business men in the Board of the Bible Union. 
And when such men as S. W. Lynd, Joseph Taylor, Edward James, 
Alvah Pierce, Robert Powell, and Thomas Swaim, can be employed to 
justify the proscription of men like Geo. W. Abbe and S. R. Kelley, upon 
grounds so foreign to the facts, and so utterly unconscionable, there 
must be an end of all public confidence in -the alleged findings of ex parie 
Committees of Investigation. 

The only other material change made in the Standing Committees 
by the nomination of Dr. Armitage, was in the Committee on Versions, 
from which my name was dropped. I had really no desire to be on that 
Committee ; but the nature, the circumstances and the effect of the 
change, led me to ask Dr. Armitage for the reasons of it ; to wbich he 
replied as follows : 

"NEW YORK, Dec. 6th, 1855. 
"Rev. O. B. JODD, LL.D., 

" DEAR BROTHER JODD, Your kind note of inquiry is received, and it affords 
me pleasure to forward you a prompt and frank reply. After I learned that the 
President would not return from Baltimore in time to attend the Board meeting 
in November, and that the nomination of the Committees for the year would de- 
volve upon me, I consulted all the members of the Committee on Versions, as I 
happened to meet them, to ascertain their wishes in reference to that Committee. 
Each expressed the opinion that no members ought to be retained who were una- 
ble to attend, and that it was not just or proper for a reviser to pronounce upon 
the merits of his own work, and that of his fellow-revisers, before it was put to 
press, unless all had the same privilege. Some of the brethren expressed serious 
doubts of the propriety of a reviser being a member of the Board at all, as it 
gave him a voice and vote in the final disposition to be made of his own produc- 
tions. But all were of opinion, that one reviser could not serve on the Committee 
without showing partiality, while another, equally interested, was excluded. 
There were already five revisers on the Committee, namely, brethren Duncan, 
Judd, Eaton, Conant, and Shannon. Another, namely, Dr. Shepherd, had been 
elected a member of the Board. Some one must be appointed on the Committee 
to fill the place of Dr. Cone, and as Dr. Maclay's absence from the city was likely 
to continue, his appointment would have left the Committee without a quorum 
a large portion of the time ; so that simple justice would have required the ap- 
pointment of Dr. Shepherd to fill that vacancy. But this would have increased 
the embarrassment complained of, by the addition of a sixth reviser, and besides, 
Dr. Shepherd did not think it right for him, as a reviser, to serve on that Com- 
mittee. It was, therefore, thought best all round, that all the revisers' names 
should be dropped from the Committee, together with the name of Wm. Norton, 
whose membership was merely nominal. 

" Another reason urged for this course, was, that the time is fast approaching 
for the appointment of the final corps of revisers, and as the suggestion of their 
names, at least, will probably be referred to the Committee on Versions, the dis- 
continuance of all the revisers from that Committee, would place each of them on 
the same footing as candidates for that responsible trust. Whereas, the Committee 
could not submit any name from their own body, without laying themselves open . 
to the deserved charge of egotism, and perhaps, to imputations of design. In this 
case, some names which it would be most desirable to present, must either 1)Q 


withheld altogether, or submitted under circumstances well adapted to excite un 
happy feelings among the corps of final revisers, inasmuch as a portion of their 
number would be called to sit in judgment the second time, upon their own work, 
and the work of their brethren. 

'' These, my dear brother, were the only reasons why your name was not pro- 
posed to the Board for reappointnient on the Committee on Versions. In making 
the changes .in the Committee I gave my reasons openly, and at considerable 
length, before the Board. After speaking of the omission of the revisers' names, 
and of the changes proposed in the Committee. I distinctly read the names nom- 
inated, twice, and no one raised the least objectiSn. But on the contrary, the 
changes were made by a unanimous vote, so far as I remember, and the meeting 
was an unusually large one. 

" I do uot think it necessary to disclaim any purpose of reflecting upon you, in 
any way whatever. And as to your ability and worthiness to fill the highest place 
of trust in the gift of the Union, I have not now, and never am likely to have a 
doubt, as I think you are well persuaded. With this expression of profound re- 
spect and Christian devotion, I am as ever, 

"Yours affectionately, 


Now, tlie same Thomas Arraitage, who, in December, 1855, was 
" affectionately" mine, with "profound respect and Christian devotion," 
and was " never likely to have a doubt" of my " ability and worthiness 
to fill the highest place of trust in the gift of the Union," goes to Louis- 
ville, in June, 1856, six months after the date of -that affectionate epistle, 
and there gives the Board of the Revision Association to understand 
that " for a long time" my "temper had been sour"; that I "seemed 
to be influenced by ambition"; that I "had exhibited a covetous spirit, 
and made exorbitant demands upon the Board, which they were illy 
prepared to meet" ; referring unquestionably to the $1,000 affair of 
1854, more than a year previous to his affectionate assurance of "pro- 
found respect," " Christian devotion " and unbounded confidence ; and 
that " six months before his death [which was at least nine months pre- 
vious to the date of Dr. A/s letter] the lamented Cone "lost confidence 
in " me, " and predicted mischief to the Society through " my " in- 
fluence." And in the New York Chronicle, of August 16th, 1856, that 
same affectionate, brother says : " Dr. Judd has a singular faculty of 
alienating friends, and he successfully exercised this faculty in the man- 
agement of the New York Chronicle." "Many of the managers and 
other friends of the Union felt grieved at the manner in which its busi- 
ness was conducted, and the tone of its editorials, especially during the 
last two years before Dr. Judd left it." " Indeed, for more than two 
years before he left it, we were painfully convinced that, from the man- 
ner in which it was conducted, it was a decided detriment to the cause." 

These allegations, made by Dr. Armitage against me, in the summer 
of 1856, cover a period of over three years previous to December, 1855, 
when that same affectionate brother expressed towards me such "pro- 
found respect and Christian devotion," and was " never likely to have a 
doubt" of niy " ability and worthiness to fill the highest place of trust 
in the gift of the Union." From these facts the reader will readily 
and certainly arrive at a correct conclusion. But let us observe the ex- 
planation of Dr. Armitage. He says, that after the Anniversary and 
previous to the nomination, lie " consulted all the members of the Com- 


mittee on Yersions." This cannot be true j for I was at that time as 
much a member of that Committee as any one, and I was not consulted. 
What is more, when I subsequently asked, him why he did not kindly 
mention to me beforehand the course which he felt constrained to take, 
he replied in a letter as follows : 

" I hare only to say that, so far as my knowledge of the duty of a presiding 
officer extends, he is not required, nor expected to inform persons beforehand 
whether he designs to nominate them on Committees or not." 

Yet, in this case, he " consulted/ 7 as he says, " all the members of the 
Committee on Yersions to ascertain their -wishes in reference to that Com- 
miltee." His views of duty relative to consultation, and to the "wishes" 
to be gratified in the appointment of Committees, must hare varied 
according to circumstances. Look at the result of this disinterested 
consultation. " It was not just or proper," he says, "for a reviser to 
pronounce upon the merits of his own work." If this was an honest 
reason, why was it never discovered before ? I had been for three suc- 
cessive years nominated by Dr. Cone and appointed by the Board, as a 
member of that Committee, subsequent to my appointment as a reviser, 
without the first suggestion from any one of the least impropriety.- 
Besides, if the consideration ever had any weight, it was lost more than 
a year before, when, in July, 1854, the Board authorized the publica- 
tion of my work on Matthew as soon as it should be prepared for the 
press. So that, if it were true (which is by no means to be admitted), 
that the Committee had legitimate authority " to pronounce upon the 
merits " of any reviser's work, the idea of my having occasion to pro- 
nounce upon the merits of my work, had I been a member of that Com- 
mittee, subsequent to November, 1855, was out of the question. This 
cannot have been the reason. 

Again, he says : " One reviser could not serve on the Committee,, 
without showing partiality, while another, equally interested, was ex- 
cluded." " Simple justice would have required the appointment of Dr, 
Shepard to fill that vacancy," made by the death of Dr. Cone. But 
"Dr. Shepard did not think it right for him, as a reviser, td serve on 
that Committee." So. it seems that, not only " all the members of the 
Committee on Yersions " were consulted, but Mr. Shepard also, in order, 
doubtless, " to ascertain his wishes in reference to that Committee" Now, 
all the while from September, 1852, I had been a reviser and a member 
of this Committee, from which numerous other revisers " equally inter- 
ested " had been, at the same time, " excluded." Why was such par- 
tiality tolerated under "the policy inaugurated by Dr. Cone?" Why 
did that veteran sage sanction, nay, establish, by the precedent of his 
own repeated nominations, such an improper appointment, to be so soon 
abrogated by his youthful successor ? Why had no member of the 
Board ever seen and suggested this impropriety before ? The officers 
now charge against me that : 

"When he learned that he was not reappointed on the Committee on Version^ 
he declared that he would not be put on a level with other revisers." 


I have no recollection of ever using such language. I am sure I 
never bad feelings which would allow me to do so, without making some 
honorable exceptions. Yet, if I could regard myself as on a level 
with the lowest, I should never attempt to translate the word of 

But again, Dr. Armitage says : " The time was fast approaching for 
the appointment of the final corps of revisers." It was desirable that 
all the revisers should be placed "on the same footing, as candidates for 
that responsible trust." And as " the Committee could not submit any 
name from their own body, without laying themselves open to the de- 
served charge of egotism, and perhaps to imputations of design," Dr. 
Armitage, after " consulting all the members of the Committee on Ver- 
sions," together with Mr. Shepard, concluded to drop me from that Com- 

When the feelings, which are now known to have existed and actu- 
ated the conduct of the officers towards me^ at that time, are considered, 
the last reason alleged is too inconsistent to require any refutation. 
That which, under other circumstances, would have been a compliment, 
was, under existing circumstances, an aggravated insult. No further 
explanation was necessary. I had then no doubt of what has since been 
demonstrated, that all this prescriptive proceeding came from a grudge 
in the breast of Wm. H. Wyckoff. Yet, I can honestly say, that while 
I was aggrieved by the change made in the Committee, on account of the 
real ground on which it was made, I have never felt any hostility to Dr. 
Armitage, nor to any other persons engaged in making i. 

About this time I learned that Dr. Maclay had been looking into the 
affairs of the Union, and felt fearful that they had not been properly 
conducted. But the origin and ground of his dissatisfaction were inde- 
pendent of any information or influence from me. He communicated 
his feelings to Win. Colgate, Esq., who said that his own mind had been 
very much exercised about the same things, and that something ought 
to be done. He said that the publication of imperfect revisions, and of 
the Monthly Reporter must be stopped ; and that all incompetent revis- 
ers, such as he was satisfied we had, must be dismissed. And the mode 
of bringing about these ends was first proposed by him. He thought it 
would be best to have a Committee of Investigation, and requested me 
to write a resolution for the appointment of such a Committee, to con- 
sist of five managers. I did so. Mr. Colgate offered the resolution. 
Mr. Wyckoff at once proposed that the investigation should be referred 
to the Committee on Publication and Finance, or to the Committee on 
Versions, of which he was a member. This was not agreed to. But 
after the resolution had been passed, and Messrs. Wm. Colgate, Esq., 
A. Maclay, D.D., Geo. W. Abbe, Esq., S. Baker, D.D., and myself, had 
been appointed, Messrs. Wyckoff and Sarles were added, at the same 
meeting. And soon after, a special meeting of the Board was called, 
at which Messrs. S. E. Shepard, E. Smith, Esq., and T. B. Stillman, Esq., 
were added to the same Committee. A majority was thus obtained, who 
effectually prevented the investigation. The officers say : 


"No sooner had the Committee met, than it became apparent that the real ob- 
ject of Dr. Judd was to destroy the character and standing of the Corresponding 

If this were true, my undertaking would have been more honorable 
than secret calumny and detraction, against which a man has no oppor- 
tunity of self-defence. But I never had an idea of doing any such thing, 
unless the character and standing of the Secretary necessarily falls with 
the rectification of errors in his administration. 

Again, referring to the time which I spent in connection with this 
Committee, the officers, in their reply to Dr. Maclay, July, 1856, say 
that : 

"During the last six months, Brother Judd is known to have occupied a large 
portion of 'his time and attention' in other investigations fen those connected 
with the revision of Matthew." 

This is, unquestionably, a matter of great weight in the minds of the 
officers. If I had taken no part in the Committee of Investigation, I 
should doubtless have been, in their estimation, a much better man. 
My character deteriorated, and my attainments, as a scholar, diminished 
with every successive disagreeable disclosure made through my instru- 
mentality. But I was a member of the Board, and being appointed 
on that Committee I felt bound to do my duty thoroughly, which, I 
believe, was done, without any considerable interference with my duties 
as a reviser. I certainly did not spend as much time in promoting the 
investigations of that Committee as some other salaried employes did to 
defeat them. Bnt fhough nothing could be done by the Committee, as 
such, yet by the most persevering' efforts of two or three individuals 
many things were brought to light which I shall set forth in their proper 

The part which I took in the Committee of Investigation seemed to 
excite Mr.Wyckoff's hostility towards me to the last degree ; and a 
pretext was sought for my dismissal. Yerbal insinuations were repeat- 
edly made at the Bible Rooms against my scholarship. And several 
statements are made in the official documents from which it may be in- 
ferred that the officers of the Bible "Union aad the Revision Associa- 
tion designed to depreciate my reputation as a scholar. If anything 
more is needed to counteract this malign influence, it will be found in 
numerous testimonials like the following. When Dr. Conant's transla- 
tion of Job 2 : 9 was assailed in the New York Observer, Mr.Wyckoff 
requested me to prepare a vindication of the new reading. I did so ; 
and soon received the following letter from Dr. Conant : 

ROCHESTER, Jan'y- 7, 1856. 

MY DEAR BROTHER : It has been daily on my mind to express to you the satis- 
faction with which I read your article on strictures of the New Yen-It Observer. I 
was sure, if you took the ignorant pretender in hand, you would leave him very 
little to boast of; and am not disappointed. The refutation of his misstatementa 
is complete ; and will be felt to be so by every one who reads it. I am much, 
obliged to you for the service, as are all who are interested in the work of the 


Union. * * * Your article has fully proved that the Observer is 

chargeable with one of two tilings : either very gross ignorance, or very loose mo- 
rality. No one can read it, in connection with the statements of the Observer, 
without being convinced of tins. I think, if it were printed as a CIRCULAR, with 
a heading tiat would attract attention, it would be a check to future assaults on 
ihe Uui<5n, 

I am grateful for the loan of your beautiful old impression of the BiUia Sacra, 
of 14S7. I know well the feeling with which these rare incunabula are cherished, 
and prise fee favor accordingly. 

I hope that Sirs. /udd. who was ill when I was last in New York, has quite recov- 
ered her health. Sirs, G. desires her very kind regards to her and yourself. Do 
not fail to call on us whenever you visit Rochester. 

Very affectionately, 


The following is from Rev, D. B, Campbell, LL.D., President of 
Georgetown College : 

GEORGETOWN', Ky., Apr. 28, 1856. 

MY DEAR BROTHER : * * * * * * 

Permit me to say that I have examined the specimen sent me of Matthew [the 

first t&ree chapters] with great pleasure. The note on is perfect. There is 

nothing elsewhere half so good. It will settle the question I believe. Your article 
on the expression of Job's wife is complete. 
I was sorry I could not see more of you, when in New York. 

I am, very truly, your brother in the Lord, 


The following is from Rev. John Stock, a critical scholar, of Hudders- 
field, England, lu a letter to the Bible TJnion, he- says : 

"The two chapters of Matthew in English, are very admirably executed. I do 
not know that in any case I should give a different sense. I am delighted with the 
Notes. They are schelarlike and judicious ; and will prove invaluable to preach- 
ers and expositors." 

The following is from the Annual Report of the Revision Association 
for 1855 : 

" Tke revision of Matthew is progressing, and we hope will soon follow the Gos- 
pel of John to the press. Thegari already issued-has catted forth numerous testimonials 
of approbation." 

Iii the Annual Report of the Bible Union for 1855, Mr. Wyekoff 

says : 

" We cannot forbear here to notice the gratifying fact that the specimens of Job 
and of Matthew have been so well received by the public. Several thousands of 
copies have already been sold." 

In a special Report to the Board, May 12, 1856, the Committee on 
Versions say that, 

" Thus far they have not recommended for printing any revision which has not 
received numerous and valuable eulogiums on account of scholarship." 


My revision of Matthew had been " recommended for printing " by 
that Committee in July, 1854, and must, therefore, have "received nume- 
rous and valuable eulogiums Dn account of scholarship." 

The following was published by the officers of the Bible Union, in the 
Monthly Reporter for October, 1855 : 


"Notices of the Gospel of Mattfcew." 


" This is the most accurate version -we have yet seen ; no deviation from the 
original text is permitted, without the most searching investigation ; and forty 
pages of sound learning are employed in justifying the alterations. Church of Eng- 
land Quarterly Review." 


" I have looked over the specimen of the revision of Matthew, and so far as I 
could examine them, I like the alterations right well. Rev. Dr. SCHAFP. 

" The work thus far greatly exceeds my expectations in the ability, candor, and 
thoroughness with which it is executed. I have read the whole with great satis- 
faction. I hope the work will not be hurried. Let it be like the picture of the 
ancient Greek, which, because he desired it might endure, was the work of a long 
time. " PROF. E. CHADWICK." 

In the face of such testimonies the officers of the Bible Union would 
not undertake to dismiss me for want of scholarship. But the slowness 
of my progress, and my unwillingness to name any particular time for 
the completion of my work, were seized upon, as the most plausible 
ground on which to effect my dismissal. I was accordingly required to 
state " definitely" when my revision of Matthew would be finished. In 
answer to this requirement, I gave the Committee on Versions as definite 
information on the subject, as the nature of the case would allow. The 
following is a portion of my first reply to that Committee : 

NEW YORK, March 29, 1856. 
Eev. -S. BAKER, D.D. 

Mr DEAR BROTHER, In answer to your inquiry about the revision of Matthew, 
I am happy to say that the first three chapters are finished, and the remaining 
portions of the book are in a state of forwardness. If I could tell you when the 
whole will be done, I would do so gladly ; but this is, from the nature of the case, 
impossible. You may, however, be sure that my sense of obligation and my sin- 
cere devotion to the cause, will insure its completion at the earliest practicable 
. period. . 

I have been both surprised and grieved to hear it stated and repeated before a 
number of individuals, by a member of the Committee on Versions, that " we " 
have been very much disappointed in not having the revision of Matthew finished 
long ago, and that he despaired of ever getting it at all from the hands of the 
present reviser. I have labored faithfully on this work, often beyond my strength, 
to the injury of my health, from the commencement of my engagement on a salary 
to the present time, with less intermission than has been taken generally by the 
other revisers and officers of the Union ; and, according to the best of my know- 
ledge, I have progressed as rapidly with my work as any other reviser, who has 
Aimed at anything like equal thoroughness. ***** 

Very truly yours, 

O. B. JUDD. 

On the reception of this letter, the Committee immediately informed 
aae, that my reply was not satisfactory, and that unless I should state 


more definitely when my revision would be done, they would be obliged 
to have some other person employed to complete the work. In answer 
to this threatening requisition, I addressed/ to that Committee the fol- 
lowing : 

BROOKLYN, May 6, 1856. , 
Rev. S. BAKER, DJX, 

MY DEAR BROTHER, Your extraordinary letter to me, of the 1st inst.. was duly 
received. I am sorry to say, it seems to have been dictated in the absence of that 
brotherly love which always tempers the heart of him who has it with kindness 
towards even the most erring member of the household of faith. And some of the 
Board, on seeing it, expressed the opinion that such a letter, under existing cir- 
cumstances, deserves to be treated with silent contempt. But fearing that such 
treatment might aggravate a spirit already too much embittered, and thus inflict a 
greater injury upon the revision cause a cause which is dearer to me than my 
own self-respect, I have concluded to send you a respectful answer. 

I am, indeed, aware that the Committee on Versions brought forward a resolu- 
tion, which they asked the Board to adopt, authorizing said Committee to mature 
plans, make nominations, &c.. for.the final body of revisers ; and that the Board 
granted the request. I am also aware that it may be desirable to have that body 
of revisers appointed at the next anniversary of the Union, that the revised version 
may be subjected to their examination as soon as it can be properly prepared. 
And no one can be more sincerely anxious than I am to see the work, in every 
stage of its progress, well done, "and finally brought to a triumphant consumma- 
tion. Although I must say that we have more to fear from too great haste in the 
expedition of the work, than from the slowness of its progress, or the lateness of 
its completion. 

I sincerely regret that my former letter proved so unsatisfactory. But this arose, 
not from any indisposition on my part, to give you full and particular information 
on the subject, but from the extent of your requisition, in calling for a more defi- 
nite statement than it was in my power to give. You wished to know the present 
condition of my work, and the probable time of its completion. I replied that, 
' the first three chapters are finished, and the remaining portions of the book are 
in a state of forwardness " ; which is as definite a statement as the nature of the 
case would warrant. For the portion finished was definitely stated ; and the con- 
dition of the remaining portions could not be more particularly described ; since, 
in the matter of an unfinished revision, it is impossible to calculate the amount of 
work done, or the amount to be done, with any degree of reliable exactness. And 
knowing that other revisers had been led to make statements in relation to the 
condition and completion of their work, on which you seemed to have relied only 
to be disappointed, I carefully avoided giving you a guessing description of my 
work, or fixing a time of which I myself had no knowledge. Besides, it appeared 
to me unnecessary that I should make a more particular written statement on this 
subject, when you Could so easily consult me orally, and examine my work with 
your own eyes. Nevertheless, it would afford me great pleasure, if by any other 
account, which it is in my power to give, I could furnish the information you de- 
sire. And although I do not see the necessity or propriety of explaining the 
method of my work, yet as you are evidently laboring under a mistake in regard 
to it, I will now inform you that, after finishing the third chapter, as requested by 
the President, Dr. Cone, I prosecuted the revision of the remaining twenty-five 
chapters simultaneously, or nearly so ; carrying each new word or phrase through 
the book; my examination of critical works and collation of versions being conform- 
ed to this method, which I had found best adapted to the accomplishment of the 
most perfect version. So that the last chapter will be finished almost as soon as 
the fourth. And the prospect is that, if I am not too much annoyed, nor other- 
wise hindered, the whole will be completed at no very distant day. For I am 
still laboring, as I ever have been from the beginning, with all my heart, mind 
and soul, to hasten that consummation, which is by me most of all devoutly to be 

You say that in my former letter, " I very unnecessarily occupied my 'own time, 


and the attention of the Committee, with uncalled-for comparisons and calcula- 
tions about the work of other revisers." It is true, I may have misjudged as to 
how I should occupy my time, in answering your letter. If so. I trust you will 
forgive this error of my judgment, so far, at least, as I am accountable to you in 
the matter. I made those comparisons to show that much more time and expense 
must be allowed for the revision of Matthew, before any one could reasonably 
complain of me as dilatory or behindhand in my work, which one member of the 
Committee on Versions had charged against me ; and as the same thing is more 
than intimated in your letter, I am satisfied that those comparisons were by no 
means " uncalled for," and that my time was not "unnecessarily occupied" in 
making them; except as I regard all this correspondence " uncalled for," and a 
very unnecessary annoyance, when a personal interview of ten minutes would give 
you more accurate and reliable information about the minutiae of my work than 
I could communicate in a hundred letters. Such a written catechism between 
persons meeting and working in the same building, I am sure is adapted, especially 
under existing circumstances, to produce no good. 

As to the time and tenure of my engagement with the Bible Union, your remark 
indicates a very unenviable disposition ; and as to the very ungracious threat that 
unless my answer contains information sufficiently definite to satisfy you, it may 
be your duty to have some one else employed to complete the revision of Matthew, 
I can sincerely say, from an honest heart, that if it is necessary for the good of the 
cause that I should be thrown overboard, I am ready to be offered; if I have done 
anything worthy of death, I refuse not to die. But let me fall, I pray you, by the 
hands of such as stood with me in the origin of this enterprize, such as had the 
holy boldness to espouse the Bible Union within the first three years of its exist- 
ence. During that period, especially. I labored literally night and day ; I spent 
no small amount of money, and sacrificed no small measure of my best health and 
strength, to uphold the men and measures of the Bible Union 5 and now to be lec- 
tured and threatened, in the style of your letter, by one who was unwilling to be- 
come a member of the Bible Union Board as late as 1854, and who is this day a 
manager of the American and Foreign Bible Society, is enough to try the temper 
of a meeker man than Moses. And he must be more or less than human, who can, 
without a large measure of divine grace, meet such provocations with courtesy 
.and kindness. Yet, I am happy to say, that I am not conscious of anything but 
the kindest feelings towards you. 

Hoping that this may prove more satisfactory than my former letter, 

I am very truly yours, 0. B. JUDD. 

' After all this, the officers of the Bible Union and the "Revision Asso- 
ciation publish under the official seals of these Institutions such state- 
ments as the following : 

" Dr. Judd seemed to take it for granted, that he would be justified in spending 
as much time on a narrative as upon an epistle of the same length ; " V that if he 
spend some years longer upon the revision of Matthew, the Board will have ^no 
reason to complain ; " " any length of time that Dr. Judd might choose to loiTer.ovei- 
it;" " and draw $125 per month for an indefinite period." " This sum [$3,983- 
33] has been drawn from the treasury of the Bible Union for three chapters of 
Matthew, by a gentleman, who originally contracted to revise the entire twenty- 
. eight chapters for one thousand dollars." " If all the employes of the Bible Union 
had acted in this way, the treasury of the United States could not have met the 
demand ; and the age of Methuselah would not have been sufficient for the com- 
pletion of the work of revision." " Dr. Judd refuses to give the Committee any infor- 
mation in regard to what are the prospects as to the time of the completion of his 

As to this alleged refusal, my correspondence with that Committee 
speaks for itself. As to what is said of the time spent ,and the money 
received, I have a little to add. It is alleged that I received $350, 


while at work on Matthew by the job, and $3,000 on salary ; also that 
$583 33 was paid for my "aid in the revision of Matthew" ; which, 
with their usual accuracy, the officers of the Bible Union, in New 
York, and the officers of the Revision Association, in Louisville, have, 
in their respective documents, footed up into an aggregate of $3,983 
33. Of this, $50 is manifestly chargeable, not to me, but to the arith- 
metic of these officers ; $583 33 was paid to Mr. Maturin, not as my 
assistant, but as an independent reviser, and cannot be honestly put to 
my account ; the balance, $3,350, was paid to me in pursuance of con- 
tracts originally proposed by officers of the Bible Union, for the fulfill- 
ment of which I am not to blame. For a small addition to this sum, the 
Bible Union would have received from me, instead of three chapters, the 
entire book of Matthew, had I been allowed to finish my work ; but by 
dismissing me, without notice, in violation of the terms of my engage- 
ment, the Union forfeited all right to my unfinished work, and made 
itself liable for a breach of contract. I am confident that no man, in 
the service of the Bible Union, as a reviser, has performed more labor, 
or produced more results, for the same money, than would have been 
received from me, had I been allowed to complete my revision of Mat- 
thew ; of which the reader can satisfy himself by a comparison with the 
following examples : 

Rev. John Lillie, D.D., originally agreed to revise the last six books 
of the New Testament for $1,000. On the 1st of November, 1852, 
when only about one sixth of the job was done, he had received $100. 
He was then employed by the year to complete it, the amount paid 
being allowed as compensation for the portion done. And for the com- 
pletion of those six books, together with 1st and 2d Thessalonians, 
1st Peter, James and Philemon, making in all about one eighth more 
than Matthew, Dr. Lillie will have received, on the 1st of May, 1857, 
upwards of $9,000. 

Rev. Wm. P. Strickland, D.D., was employed to revise Colossians, at 
first by the job, for $200 ; then by the year, on a salary of $1,500. 
This book is about one tenth as much as Matthew ; and Dr. Strickland's 
revision of it has cost the Bible Union upwards of $1,000. 

Eld. S. B. Shepard was employed to revise Philippians, at first for 
: $3 per day ; then on a salary of $1,400. This book is about one tenth 
as much as Matthew, and Eld. Shepard's revision of it has cost the 
Union upwards of $1,100. 

Rev. T. J. Conant, D.D., who, the officers of the Bible Union say, 
"has been for the last forty years earnestly engaged in translating thfe 
Scriptures," of which he had, according to the Committee of Investi- 
gation, " a part nearly ready for the press," before he entered the se'r- 
vice of the Union, was employed by the Bible Union in July, 1853, as 
the officers say, to prepare ^ the final revision of his translation before 
it goes to press." For this service he was, according to the written 
testimony of the Assistant Treasurer, now in my possession, to receive 
a "salary of $2,000 per annum." According to the Committee of In- 
vestigation, his work was, in July, 1853, "in a state of forwardness^ ; 
and since that time he has been accustomed, as the officers of the Uiifon 


tifVj to spend "frcm fourteen to sixteen hours out of every twenty-four, 
in the closest study" having the assistance of " a lady," as the same officers 
testify, " who readily reads and writes eight or ten la/nguagcs, including 
the Oriental biblical tongues." Yet the only portion which Dr. Conant 
had prepared for the press previous to October, 1856 (and so far as I 
know, he has delivered nothing to the Board since that time), was the 
book of Job, which is about one thirty-fifth part of the Old Testament. 
And during the time, he has drawn not less than $7,000 from the trea- 
sury of the Bible Union. 

After writing the preceding letter, of May 6, 1856, 1 heard nothing 
further, from the Committee on Versions till the close of the month, 
when I received the following : 

WILIJAMSBURG, N. Y., May 30, 1856. 
Rev. 0. B. JODD, LL.D., 

DEAR BROTHER, The Committee on Versions have instructed me, as their 
Chairman, to give you due notice that their contract with you as reviser is no 
longer in force ; you will please, therefore, to consider yourself as thus notified. 

'The following is a copy of the resolution adopted by that Committee : 

'"Resolved, That the Committee on Versions authorize and instruct their Chair- 
man to give due notice to Rev. O. B. Judd, that their contract with him as a reviser 
is no longer in force." 

Yours, truly, 


Chairman of the Committee 'on Versions of the Board 
of the American Bible Union. 

Then, without any solicitation or information from me, relative to the 
above act, the Board of the Revision Association sent me, under date 
of June 10, 1856, the following telegraphic despatch : 

"The Managers of the Revision Association, now in session, have your case in 
hands ; for the sake of the momentous interests involved, we pray you to wait any 
public action, till you hear from us officially. 

"T. S. BELL, 
"Chairman of the Board of Managers." 

Soon after, the following communication came to hand through, the 
mail : 


The Revision Association have heard, with the profoundest regret, of your dis- 
missal from the Board of Revisers. We recognize your long-continued, earnest 
and useful labors In the cause of pure versions; and it would pain us to think that 
you were withdrawn from this noble cause. May we not indulge the hope that 
you Will bear the matter patiently and not endanger the interests of the great enter- 
'prize'by your views of personal wrongs. We are the more emboldened to thus 
address you, from the fact that we have this day appealed to the Bible Union in 
r your_behalf, and we ask of you to examine that document, and then .permit us to 
hear from you. 

In the hope that all things will work together for good, and that your happiness 
-anil p'eace will be largely increased, the Revision Association subscribe themselves, 
Your brothers, in the hope of Immortality, 



June 10th, 185 r 6. J W. W. EVERTS. 


When the appeal above referred to reached New York, a deputation 
was forthwith despatched to Louisville, of which the officers say : 

" This action on their part rendered it necessary for the President and the 
Chairman- of the Committee on Versions to visit Louisville, which they did, at their 
own expense, for the purpose of undoing this mischief. That Board, upon a full 
hearing, reversed its action, thanked the brethren warmly for their visit, and sent 
500 to .our treasury at once. 

" When the Board in New York were informed of these matters, they felt it hut 
just to pay the travelling expenses of these two brethren, and did so, notwith- 
standing several Individuals proposed to pay the bills themselves." 

A fuller account of the same thing is contained in the following letter 
from Dr. Everts : 

LOUISVELLE, June 27, 1856. 

While I was absent at Georgetown, attending the Anniversary exercises, and en- 
gaged in important denominational affairs, brethren Armitage and Baker visited 
the Louisville Board, and converted them from their purpose to inquire further 
into the affairs and doings of the Bible Union. I understand they left the impres- 
sion on the Board that great forbearance has been exercised towards you ; that for 
a long time your temper has been sour ; that you seem to be influenced by ambi- 
tion ; that you have exhibited a covetous spirit, and made exorbitant demands 
upon the Board, which they were illy prepared to meet ; that, six months before 
his death, the lamented Cone lost confidence in you, and predicted mischief to the 
Society from your influence ; that you treated with wanton contempt the authority 
of the Board, and the official action of its Committees. They solemnly aver that 
you would give them no assurances that Matthew should be done in one, two, or 
five years. I doubt not a statement from you would be respectfully considered 
by our Board, and might open the way for mediation and reconciliation. * * 

When I remember how your fearless and disinterested course has armed many 
against you, I cannot bear that the body of all others able to vindicate your char- 
acter, and perpetuate with honor your memory, should be alienated from you. Is 
there nothing that you ought to explain, retract, or confess, to put yourself within 
the protection of your friends and the divine favor ? You know the plainness of 
this question proceeds from the tenderness of my love for you, and my exceeding 
jealousy for your reputation. 

Dear brother, pray much, counsel with your wife, and other disinterested and 
wise persons ; and if possible take a position that may lead to a renewal of your 
engagement by the Board. 

Accept assurances of the Christian esteem of 

Yours, in the Gospel, 


This letter, coming from a prominent member of the Louisville Board, 
manifested a spirit which I greatly admire and love. But I could not 
take the course which it indicated. The' appeal of that Board to the 
Bible Union in my behalf had been made without my solicitation or 
knowledge. It had been withdrawn on the ex yarte, accusatory repre- 
sentations of Drs. Armitage and Baker, which the Louisville Board 
entertained, accredited and made the basis of a solemn decision against 
me, without giving me an opportunity to disprove, explain, or know the 
things whereof I was accused. After such an action, on a principle 
so unjust in itself, so injurious in its operation, denying me the even- 
handed justice which was accorded to the chief of sinners by a heathen 


magistrate) it did not become me to seek the "mediation" of its 

. It is true, I doubt not, that upon the return of Drs. Armitage and 
Baker, $500 was transmitted from the treasury of the Revision Associa- 
tion to the treasury of the Bible Union ; but it is also true that about 
twenty per cent, of that sum was immediately voted out of the treasury 
to pay the "expenses of the deputation, which the Secretary says went at 
his earnest entreaty without the knowledge of the Board. 

After all this work of the deputation, I received from the Secretary 
of the Revision Association the following affectionate epistle : 

LOUISVILLE, Ky., July 1st, 1S56. 

MY DEAR BROTHER : I have just returned from a trip of six weeks in Missouri. 
I learn that in my absence a communication was made to the Bible Union on the 
subject of your separation from the Board of Revisers, and dated the llth of June ; 
and that you were referred to the same in a communication of the same date. I 
also learn that at a full meeting of the Board on the 23d of June, the communica- 
tion was withdrawn, our Board having become satisfied that there was no alterna- 
tive while your position remained unchanged. With the ardent hope that reflec- 
tion may induce you to reconsider your decisions and positions, and with the deep- 
est regret that you should by any means have been separated irom the Board and 
Committee on Versions, in whom we have the utmost confidence, we, in the lan- 
guage of Bro. Everts' letter of yesterday, entreat you to reconsider and return to 
your work in the spirit of love. 

Your true friend, 


In another letter, dated July 11, 1856, Mr. Edmunds writes officially, 
and says : 

"We hope you are yet to do much effective service in the revision ranks. Do 
not, in a moment of haste, injure yourself and the cause for which we have labored 
so long. But wait till the breeze passes, and then we will each act his part." 

Let it be borne in mind that the author of these letters, who on the 
1st of July, 1856, after hearing all that Messrs. Armitage and Baker, 
the deputation sent to Louisville by Mr. Wyckoff, in behalf of the Bible 
Union, could say against me, entreats me to reconsider and return to 
my work ; and on the llth of July, 1856, implores me to keep quiet 
till " the breeze passes," in the hope that I may yet do much effective 
service in the Bible Union that same Jamos Edmunds, as soon as he 
finds that I cannot be persuaded to co-operate in the perverse manage- 
ment of the Union, nor yet to give it the sanction of my silence, comes 
out, as my " true friend," in a book, written " on behalf of the Revision 
Association," dated July 29, 1856, and pronounces me "unworthy to be 
continued as a reviser," "degraded from a position he was unworthy 
to hold among the revisers of the Bible Union," actuated by a " malig- 
nity that surpasses all the ordinary forms of human malice," " a stretch 
of malice that is scarcely human," the " madiinator of all this war upon 
the Bible Union," in which there had been " expended so much venom," 
the whole animus of which was " for revengeful purposes ; " and repre- 
sents me as having, in the first Committee of Investigation, which met 


months previous to Mr. Edmunds' affectionate letters of July 1st and 
July llth, made Wm. H. Wyckoff, than whom, according to Mr. Ed- 
munds, "no purer man lives upon the earth/- a " target for perpetual 

Under other circumstances this might be taken as the old story, so 
often reiterated by some religious sect so long as he agrees and works 
with us, he is great and good, but as soon as he withdraws from us, he 
never was much, or he is a fallen angel that story being told in the 
peculiar spirit of James Edmunds. But in this case unmistakable evi- 
dence compels me to believe, that all these aspersions were designed as 
a part of that conspiracy, which was deliberately formed and indefati- 
gably prosecuted, to break down the influence of Dr. Maclay, on the 
ground of his alleged imbecility, and of me, on the ground of alleged 
malice and revenge ; thus to forestall or counteract the effect of what- 
ever we might feel it our duty to say about the mismanagement of the 
Bible Union. 

Again, the Committee of the Revision Association, echoing the senti- 
ment of the officers of the Bible Union, charge me with the authorship of 
a "mendacious pamphlet, issued under the name of Dr. Maclay." They 
say : 

" We know that Dr. Judd has often written articles which appeared before the 
public as Dr. Maclay's ; and also /cnoiv that the late John L. Waller wrote ai-ticlea 
which appeared ia publication with A. Maclay's name appended to them." 

Dr. Waller is dead and cannot speak for himself. As to what he did 
in this respect, I know not. But, as far as I am concerned, the above 
statement, made by James Edmunds and T. S. Bell, "on behalf of the 
Revision Association," is untrue, in every sense of the word. And it is 
the more reprehensible on account of its having been made after Dr. 
Maclay's positive declaration to the contrary had been published. It is 
not strange that an allegation so groundless should be accompanied with 
the charge of mendacity. 

Again, in their reply to Dr. Maclay, the officers of the Union, refer- 
ring to me, say : 

"He issued a circular against the Committee, and the plans approved by the 
Board and the Union, and sent it to the enemies of the Union, while be was still 
a member of the Board." 

. The case stands thus : From recent transactions the question arose 
whether, in carrying out the plan of the Union for the revision of the 
New Testament, the judgment of a Committee on Yersions could be 
properly interposed to prevent the work of any reviser from being sent 
to the other revisers for their examination and criticisms, and as a con- 
sequence prevent the author from re-revising his work, with the aid of 
such criticisms, before it is submitted to the final Committee for adjudi- 
cation. "While this question was under consideration in the Committee 
of Investigation, before any action of .the Board on the subject, Mr. 
Wyckoff published a statement in the New York Chronicle on the affirm- 


ative of this question, alleging a modification of the plan. Deeming it 
wrong that public sentiment and the action of the Board should be 
thus forestalled, I prepared a brief statement of the original plan, con- 
cluding as follows : 

"Now, although the alleged modification of this plan has awakened some fearful 
forebodings, yet, it is to be hoped that the views of the President will prevail, and 
that the plan, as set forth by brethren Cone, Colgate and "Wyckoff, in 1853, will be 
fully and faithfully carried out. Let every friend of pure versions pray for us, 
that the God of all srace may direct our steps, and lead us on to complete success 
in this glorious enterprize." 

This article was written for the New York Chronicle, and sent to the 
editor of that paper, Rev. P. Church, D D., for publication. But he 
rejected it, and wrote me in explanation as follows : 

" I cannot at present see my way clear to insert your article, for the good reason 
that it will open the door to a newspaper controversy." 

The article was then printed in the form of a Circular, and sent to the 
readers of the Chronicle, to all of whom, whether friends or " enemies of 
the Union," the statement of Mr. Wyckoff had been previously sent. It 
contained nothing " against the Committee and the plans approved by 
the Board and the Union." The change in the plan of revision, to 
which it refers, will be considered in its proper place. 

Again, the officers of the Union, in the catalogue of their allegations 
against me, say that, 

" On the 3d of June, 1854, he drew $125 in advance.o-Q. this salary ; " that is, my 
salary for June was paid on the 3d of the same month. 

That is true ; but whatever of wrong there was in it, is chargeable, 
not so much to me for asking, as to the Treasurer for granting the 
favor ; paying out so much mon'.y so far "in advance;" and the officers 
should have called him to account at once, instead of arraigning me for 
his fault two years after it was committed. But these officers ought to 
know that this is not the only payment made from the treasury of the 
Union " in advance." In July, 1853, $1,300 was paid to Dr. Conant 
" in advance," for which $33 33 was to be deducted from his salary 
every month till the whole should be repaid without interest. Again, on 
or before the 13th of June, 1856, $125 was charged in the cash book 
of the Bible Union, as paid out of the treasury on account of Wm. H. 
Wyckoff's salary for July, 1856 ; notwithstanding the officers say, " the 
Corresponding Secretary has no control over the treasury," and that 
" money cannot be taken from the treasury except by the Treasurer's 
check ; and this is never given except upon the written warrant of the 
Assistant Treasurer ;" and "the warrants are made out in accordance 
with the acts of the Board, which are certified to the Treasurer by the 
minutes of the Board." How well it becomes Mr. Wyckoff to point out 
a mote in my eye, while he has a beam in his own eye, let the clear- 
sighted, right-minded reader judge for himself. 


But it is enough. These aspersions, though stamped with the official 
seals of the Bible TJnion and the Revision Association, deserve no far- 
ther notice at my hands. Multitudes, who read them, will exclaim, in 
the language of Cone and Wyckoff, " We cannot sufficiently express our 
disgust at suck malicious andwic/ced attempts to injure private c/iarader." 

I shall now proceed to state and prove some additional facts, in rela- 
tion to the American Bible Union, which the public have a right to 
know, and which I feel bound to communicate. 

After the first Committee of Investigation was appointed, Mr. Wyc- 
koff proposed that the officers be requested to lay before the Committee 
a written statement of " the present condition and practical working of 
the Bible Union." But this was objected to, as not being the investiga- 
tion which the Committee were required to make. But no such objec- 
tion seems to have prevailed with the second Committee. That Com- 
mittee was originally selected by the officers of the Union, whose official 
management, among other things, was to be the subject of examination. 
Of the nine appointed by the Board, Judge Black, Alexander Camp- 
bell, J. A. Pond, and Dr. Eaton did not act ; and " the officers at the 
Rooms," being authorized " to fill any vacancies that might occur in the 
Committee," appointed^re more ; making the Committee consist of ten, 
one more than was ever in any way authorized by the Board. It has 
seemed unaccountable to some, who were familiar with the affairs of the 
Bible Union, that such men as composed that Committee could make 
out, or agree upon, such a Report. But the perfect ex part 'e character 
of that Report is explained by the implicit confidence which led the 
Committee, not only to make Wni. H. Wyckoff (whose official conduct 
was in part the subject of their investigation), the source of their infor- 
mation, but the actual organ of their utterance. And it may be well 
to give here, out of the numerous evidences which bear on this point, 
one or two specimens. 

In the body of the Committee's Report, as officially published in the 
Bible Union Reporter, November, 1856, a member of that Committee, 
and a signer of the Report, is designated thus : " A. Pierce, Esq., Vice 
Pres. Hamilton Bank, Treas. Madison University, N. Y." Kow, it 
happens that Alvah Pierce is not now, and never has been, " Treasurer 
of Madison University ; " so it is scarcely possible that such a misstate- 
nient would have appeared in that Report, if Mr. Pierce had even so 
much as heard it read, "before it was signed with his name. But the 
" real author " of this misstatement is indicated by a remarkable coin- 
cidence between this and the following : " Alvah Pierce, Esq., Vice 
President, Hamilton Bank, and Treasurer of Madison University, N.Y.," 
which is found in the Annual Report of the Bible Union, written by 
Win. H. Wyckoff, just before the Committee's Report, and submitted to 
the Union at the same meeting. It is evident that this misnomer was 
put into both Reports by the same hand, and it is next to certain that 
the hand which put it into the Annual Report belonged to Wm. H. 

In another portion of this document I find the following remarkable 
expression : " This their Report, made, as they have reason to Mieve, in 



the fear of God." If the Report had been made by the Committee 
themselves, it is reasonable to suppose that what is here stated as a mere 
matter of belief founded on reason, would have been simply affirmed, as a 
matter of knowledge, founded upon consciousness. All this, however, might 
be overlooked, if it were not found in connection with other concurrent 
and more conclusive evidence of borrowed authorship. 

But on a further comparison, these Reports exhibit to the most super- 
ficial observer unmistakable evidences of a common origin ; of which the 
following parallel passages must be sufficient to satisfy every reasonable 

FromWm. H. Wyckoff s Report. 

" It must not be understood that ste- 
reotyping is always an ultimate and de- 
cisive operation." 

" The Committee on Versions, after 
examining a revision and obtaining the 
views of scholars thereon, conclude that, 
on the whole, it will answer to advise 
the Board to authorize its publication. 
When such authority is given, the revi- 
ser begins to furnish copy to the print- 
er, and as proof comes back to him from 
day to day, he sees things in new lights, 
and makes such repeated changes, that 
sometimes his original manuscript 
would hardly be recognized. Page 
after page goes into form, and still he 
finds -the necessity of more alterations. 
But now the printer caa spare no more 
type, and it becomes necessary to cast 
the pages set up. to release the type in 
use. The plates, however, are still sub- 
ject to change, modern improvements 
rendering it nearly as easy to alter them 
as to alter type. The reviser finds that 
some change which he makes in new 
proof, compels corresponding changes 
in parts already stereotyped, and ac- 
cordingly he has them made." 

"It is evident, then, that stereotyping 
is a mere matter of convenience and 
economy, and that the question of pub- 
lishing the revision, when the reviser 
himself is prepared for it, may be a 
matter of serious re-examination and 

From, the Investigating Commit- 
tee's Report. 

"To those who are not acquainted 
with the operation of stereotyping, it 
may appear to be ultimate and decisive 
in matters of publication. But this is 
not the fact." 

" The Committee on Versions, after 
examining a revision and obtaining the 
views of scholars thereon, conclude that, 
on the whole, it will do to advise the 
Board to authorize its publication. 
'The reviser begins to furnish copy to 
the printer, and, as proof comes back 
to him from day to day, he sees where 
alterations are required. Page after 
page goes into form, and still he finds 
it necessary to alter. But" now the 
printer has no more type, and it is ne- 
cessary to cast the pages set up to re- 
lease the type. The "plates, however, 
are still subject to change, modern im- 
provement rendering it nearly as easy 
to alter them as to alter type." 

' The reviser finds that some change 
which he makes in new proof, compels 
corresponding changes in the parts al- 
ready stereotyped, and he has these 

" It is evident that stereotyping is a 
mere matter of convenience and econo- 
my ; and that the question of publish- 
ing the revision when the reviser him- 
self is prepared for it, may be a matter 
of serious re-examination and .consider- 

This proves, beyond all reasonable doubt, that the Report signed by 
the Committee of Investigation was written by Wm. H. Wyckoff, whose 
official acts were, with other matters, the subject of investigation. But 
while this strips the Committee's Report of all legitimate authority, and 
renders it unworthy of the least reliance, it does not diminish, but rather 
enhances the responsibility of the men who signed that Report. 


In the Report of the Investigating Committee Messrs. Wyckoff and 
Buckbee are lauded as " self-sacrificing officers." If this was intended 
to be a true and just representation of facts, it is difficult to understand 
in what sense the expression should be taken. Wm. H. Wyckoff was 
Secretary of the American and Foreign Bible Society till the spring of 
1850, when his re-election to that office was opposed and defeated. In 
the summer following, the Bible Union was organized, and Mr. Wyckoff 
was elected Secretary. His salary was at first $1,200 ; the same, I 
think, as he had been paid in the other Society. It was then extended 
back to the time when he failed of a re-election in the Am. and For. B. 
Society, covering a period precious to the formation rf the Bible Union. 
It was afterwards raised to $1,500, and again to $1,800, which he now 
receives in monthly instalments. Eev. C. A. Buckbee was, at the time 
the Bible Union was organized, pastor of a church in Massachusetts, on 
a salary not exceeding $400. He afterwards travelled a year or more, 
as an agent for the N. Y. Chronicle, till he was employed in the Bible 
Union Rooms ; where his salary was at first $000, subsequently $800, 
then $1,000, and finally $1,200, which he is now receiving, together 
with $200 or more additional, for services performed by him in another 

The above facts are stated with no disposition to detract from the 
just deserts of these gentlemen. But to correct the erroneous impres- 
sion which the Report of the Investigating Committee is calculated to 
make, by showing that however "^/"-sacrificing" these officers may have 
been, they cannot have been remarkably ff^??M/-sacrificmg. Nor can they 
be regarded as altogether disinterested in their testimony. 

The Committee of Investigation profess to have " instituted a strict 
and rigid examination of the system of keeping the financial accounts, 
as adopted by the officers of the Bible Union ; " and they conclude, 
" that the financial management of the Bible Union is admirable." On 
this point I will simply say, that no such system as that described by the 
Committee was ever acted on by the officers of the Bible Union previous 
to the recent investigations ; and whoever asserts anything of the kind 
must be either deceived or regardless of the truth. The following 
ought to be more satisfactory on this subject than the testimony of any 
Committee, whose information is obtained directly from the officers im- 
plicated : 

NEW YORK, April 7, 1S57. 

Allow me to ask how long you were a member of the Finance Committee of tiie 
Bible Union ; also, whether during that time it was a common thing for the offi- 
cers to pay bills, other than incidental expenses, before they had been examined 
and approved by that Committee ; and if so, whether any members of that Com- 
mittee ever remonstrated against such unauthorized disbursements, and if so. 
whether the Bame thing was subsequently repeated. 

Very truly yours, 

O. B. JUDD. 

NEW YORK, April 8, 1S57. 

In answer to your inquiries in your note of 7th inst., I would state that I was a 
member of the Finance Committee of the Am. Bible Union from June 11, 1850, 


tot October, 1855 ; and during that time the officers were in the habit of paying 
bills before they came before that Committee for approval. In 1854, antf '55, it 
was frequently referred to when that. Committee met ; and the officers were re^ 
monstrated members of that Committee, ibr disbursing money without, 
authority. Such disbursements were continued, and objected to by the members 
who were left oft 1 from that Committee in October, 1855. 

Yours very truly, 


Dr. Maclay stated that "a portion of the IV. Y. Chronicle, secured 
by an annual appropriation of $1,000, for the publication of revision 
matter, ^as found to be practicaMy under the absolute control of the 
Secretary, and to be used according to his pleasure." The Committee 
of Investigation cite a resolution of the Board, authorizing "an annual 
expenditure" for such publication, "to an amount not exceeding |1,000."' 
Upon which they add, "Jn accordance with this authority, the officers 
occupy three columns in the JV. Y. Chronicle." The appropriation, and 
the use of the Chronicle by the officers of the Bible Union, are thus 
fully admitted. As to the editorial control of these columns, the Com- 
mittee of the Revision Association say that " Dr. Maclay's son is the 
editor of the Bible Uniou department of the New York Chronicle; " and 
Dr. Church, in an editorial/ speaks of the same person, as " the Bible 
Union editor ; " but says : " The right to exclude whatever we please 
from the Bible Union department of our paper, has been from the first 
conceded to us by contract." In this the Committee and Dr. Church 
are both wrong. For in the article of agreement by which the Ckroni- 
de was sold to Messrs. Church & Backus, it was agreed by them, " that 
they will employ Hon. Wm. B. Maclay to prepare weekly contributions, on 
the subject of the Bible translation, to be approved by them, and, if 
desired, by Wm. H. Wyckoff ." Then, in an editorial last summer, Dr. 
Church says : " We have not gone behind the curtain to pry into the 
manner in which the Bible Union editor does his duty, but have left him 
at liberty to pursue his own course." 

From this it will be seen, that Mr. Maclay, instead of being an 
" editor," after the Chronicle was sold to Messrs. Church & Backus, was 
only a contributor; and so far from having the control of any portion 
of the Chrcnide, his own contributions had " to be approved " by Messrs. 
Church & Backus, " and if desired, by Wm. H. Wyckoff. So that the 
surrendering of the editorial control of the Bible Union department by 
Messrs. Church & Backus, as admitted by Dr. Church, did by the terms 
of the contract, necessarily leave it in the hands of Wm. H. Wyckoff. 
And Dr. Church knows very well, that not only the Bible Union de- 
partment, but every other department of the Neio York C&ronide has 
been controlled by -the same man. 

In addition to the .ZVez0 York Chronicle, is the Bible Union Reporter, 
Quarterly. This was first projected as a periodical by Wm. H. Wyc- 
koff. It has been repeatedly recognized by Mr. Wyckoff, in his Annual 
Reports, but the establishment of a Quarterly periodical was never au- 
thorized by any specific act of the Board, or the Union. This period- 
ical is, according to the inscription of the title-page, " edited by Wm. EL 
Wyckoff and C. A. Buckbee," although neither of them was e,ver 


pointed to such a post by any legitimate authority. The contents of the 
Quarterly, both as to kind and quantity, are determined by the pleasure 
of these gentlemen, although the periodical goes forth as the official organ 
of the Bible Union. It is sent without charge, post-paid, not only to 
life members of the Union, but to all subscribers of life memberships. 

There is also the Bible Union Reporter Monthly, containing, instal- 
ments of the revised version, together with four pages of miscellaneous 
reading in each number. This periodical is also edited by Wm. H. Wyc- 
koff and his assistant, who make it the medium of publishing whatever 
they please. This periodical was started by Mr. Wyckoff before the 
subject was even so much as mentioned in the Board. The Committee 
of Investigation say that, 

" Previously to its issue it -was particularly described in the Annual Report, 
which was unanimously approved by the Board." 

If this statement were true, its endorsers, as well as its "real author" 
are men of too much common sense to suppose that the adoption of an 
Annual Report, in which a periodical is " particularly described," would, 
without any further special action, authorize the establishment of such a 
publication. But the statement itself is untrue ; as I will prove. The 
description -referred .to by the Committee is found, as written by Wm. H. 
Wyckoff, in the Annual Report ef October, 1855, and reads as fol- 
lows : 

" The book of Job is now appearing in consecutive nwrilers* and subscriptions are 
taken for it by the year, twelve numbers constituting the year -of ithe periodical, 
whether issued in a greater or less-space -of .time." 

The Committee of Investigation assert that the first issue of the 
Monthly Reporter was subsequent to the Board's adoption of the Report 
containing the above description. But the description itself contradicts 
the Committee, by stating that at the time the Report was written, 
some days at least previous to its adoption, the periodical was then " ap- 
pearing in consecutive numbers." This misstatement .did not originate 
with the Committee, nor did it result from any personal investigations 
of the Committee. It is the known language of an interested party. 
But the Committee have endorsed it, and thereby assumed the respon- 
sibility of making it. 

Dr. Maclay said " it appeared that the Secretary had, without any au- 
thority from the, Board, made arrangements with a house in London for 
the republication of this periodical, and sent duplicate stereotype plates, 
made in New York." The Committee of Investigation, admitting all 
this, endeavor to justify it, on the ground that the arrangements so 
made, are, as they believe, pecuniarily advantageous to the Union. But 
every one must see that this, if true, would not justify such an assumption 
of executive power by a secretarial officer. 

The Committee of Investigation say the Monthly Reporter " gives a 
reputation to the Union, in Europe and America, which it could not 
otherwise obtain." This may be so ; but the reputation so obtained, 


cannot be very creditable to the Bible Union.. For the editorial con-- 
duct of that periodical would disgrace the columns of any respectable 
newspaper ; as the reader can see from the following specimens. In the 
printing' of the Hebrew text, an unaccountable number of mistakes, re- 
lating to points, letters, and words, occur ; not less than one hundred and 
fifty in five conseeative chapters. In an article written by Dr. Strick- 
land for the Bible Union, and published in the Monthly Reporter .\)j the 
officers with their endorsement, it is said that, 

" The Hebrew language was very imperfectly known,, and but little attention 
paid to its study at the time the translation [King James'] was made." "It was 
at best but a translation from a translation, not from the- original Hebrew anci 
Greek, the translators being mostly confined to the Septuagint and Vulgate." 

From an article published in a Canadian newspaper, the officers of the 
Bible Union made some lengthy extracts, which they republished in the 
Monthly Reporter. These extracts contain the following statements ; 

"There are now engaged in the revision, in the special employment of the Uniony 
over forty scholars, each of whom has his part of the Scriptures to revise."- " The 
thoughts of the divine mind will appear to the human mind in all their divine 
simplicity, original purity, and omnipotent power." "Probably there is no Soci- 
ety or individual in the world that has the critical apparatus for the attainment 
of these objects like the Bible Union. I was invited to inspect it, which I did. 77 
" I saw the original manuscript meriting of the Apostles ; more correctly speaking, a 
fac simile of their writing. 7 ' " I also saw the Syriac version, which was translated 
in the time, of the Apostles ; at least before John died 5 and a Chinese translation, 
also, of one of the copies of the present common version, as published at the time 
the revision was made." " The Apostolic writing is as beautiful as printing, or 
what we term copperplate writing." "I was told that one reviser consulted over 
two hundred and fifty books, in the revision of one short epistle ; and that another 
was occupied for about two years in revising one of the Gospels, previous to the 
first publication." 

All these extracts were prefaced with an editorial note, by the offi- 
cers of the Union ; attributing them to a person who had " recently 
visited the Rooms," as an account of " what he heard and saw ; " not even 
intimating that the account was in any particular incorrect, although 
they must have known that the statements which they thus republished, 
with their own complete and unqualified endorsement, had no foundation 
in truth. 

The above specimens are sufficient to satisfy any one that the Monthly 
Reporter " gives a reputation to the Union, in Europe and America, which 
it could not otherwise obtain ;" but not such a reputation as was meant 
by the Committee of Investigation. 

If it were necessary or desirable for the Bible Union to conduct a 
quarterly, a monthly, and a weekly periodical, it should be done by per- 
sons qualified and employed for the purpose. But no such publications 
are necessary. It is not right that the Board and the Union should 
thus be made accountable for whatever a Secretary may please to write 
or publish in their name. A monthly periodical is not a proper medium 
for the publication of a new translation, especially when that transla- 
tion is immature, and unapproved, except by tke author and the Com- 


mit'tee on Versions. And a Bible Society, whose exclusive object is 
** to procure and circulate the most faithful versions of the Sacred 
Scriptures in all languages throughout the world," cannot legitimately 
maintain the unrestricted publication of such periodicals. JNor can the 
officers of such a Society, who are appointed with reference to other and 
very different duties, with salaries of from $1^500 to $1,800, properly 
and justly devote their time to the editing, the correspondence, the book- 
keeping, the mailing, and other incidental work of a newspaper office. 

The Committee of Investigation characterize the control of the Sec- 
retary over the management of the Bible Union as "the highest element 
of success." On this point, I will state some facts which have come 
under niy own observation, and leave the public to judge what kind of 
"success "is likely to result from such control. The Secretary has a 
room to himself ; he has a messenger boy, a lithographic and a letter- 
press printer at his command. He sends for any persons whom he may 
wish to see on any subject or occasion, and spends as much time with 
them as suits his purpose. He convenes any Committee that he wishes 
to consult, and sits in deliberation with every standing Committee of 
the Board at their regular meetings ; taking special pains to get them 
committed to every measure of his projecting, before it comes up in the 
Board, He writes just as many and as few letters as he pleases ; and 
writes just what he pleases. At the meetings of the Board he reads 
extracts from the correspondence, often in a mutilated condition ; bring- 
ing out and suppressing such portions as he deems suited or unsuited to 
his purpose. He prepares, prints and distributes, post-paid, circulars of 
any kind, and to any extent, that he thinks desirable to promote his 
objects. The agents, clerks, porters, &c., are employed and dismissed at 
his instigation. He arranges the annual elections, so that the member- 
ships of the Board and the officers of the Union, and the Committees, 
with their various recommendations, such as that for raising the salaries 
of the officers, depend upon, and are determined according to his plea- 
sure. He first nominates the revisers of the Union, with the respective 
portions assigned to them for revision, conducting, either directly or nom- 
inally, through the Committee, all subsequent negotiations and corres- 
pondence with them ; and their re-employment, discontinuance or dis- 
missal, depends upon his proposition and recommendation ; and more 
than once he has constrained revisers to vary their translations on other 
grounds than a conscientious regard for the meaning of the original 

Besides, there are innumerable other matters pertaining to the man- 
agement of the Bible Union, which are directly or indirectly under the 
control of the Secretary. Indeed, I know of little or nothing in the 
conduct of that Institution which is not subject to his dictation. Yet 
such control by a Secretary of the Bible Union does not imply what 
the Committee of Investigation charge against Dr. Maclay, a reproach 
on " the respectable and pious men in the Board, that they bow their 
necks in subserviency to one man." For that Board is composed mostjy 
of business men, who make no pretensions to learning, and who cannot 
act in anything that pertains to a mere literary performance, upon their 


knowledge 'and independent judgment; they must depend on the 
information of others, and no "other person has so 'good opportunities and 
means for informing and influencing members of the Boatd (and the- 
saitie is true in relation to members of the Union), as the Secretary. 
AVall events, such are the facts in the case ; and this "absolute con- 
trol," however it may now be lauded as " the highest element of success," 
"will yet be: deplored as the precnrsor and procuring cause df an inglorious 

In relation to the stereotype plates of Dr. Conant's revision of Job, 
the Committe'e of Investigation declare that, 

" The facts are these, as the Committee learned upon investigation. Instead of 
being six forms, as charged by Dr. Maelay, there are eight forms; and instead of 
the Board having ordered bat one form, they ordered three, as the records clearly: 
show. The Board ordered the quarto forms." 

Now, if the case be taken as stated by the Committee, the result is 
the same. Indeed, their statement corroborates the only essential fact 
alleged by Dr. Maelay on this point. For there is no difference, so far 
as it respects the assumption of power by the Secretary, whether there 
were three forms authorized and eight made, or one authorized and six 
made. There would be in either case the same number of forms unau- 
thorized -by the Board. But "the facts," which the Committee solemnly 
declare they " learned upon investigation," did not exist. "The revised 
version of Job, by Dr. Conant," to which Dr. Maclay's remark was ex- 
clusively applied, and to which alone the Committee's reply is in any Way 
applicable, was not stereotyped in "eight forms." There were of that 
tersion three sets of plates in quarto; .one in octavo; one in duodecimo, 
and one in duodevicesimo. And when S. W. Lynd, Joseph Taylor, Ed- 
ward James, Alvah Pierce, Robert Powell, Thomas Swaim, and others, 
assert as fads, which they " learned upon investigation," that "the revised 
version of Job, by Dr. Conant," had been stereotyped in " eight forms," 
they give all the weight of their influence ; they pledge the honor of 
their names ; they absolutely stake their characters for veracity, to 
"establish the confidence of the public in that which wants the first' shade 
of truth. The Committee say : , . . - 

" The objection : that the work has InSW stereotyped, without any examination by 
'other scholars, as is required by the. general plan of the Union, is simply, in th'e 
view'of the Committee, a mistake. Ther'e is no rate in the general planTvhicb 
v fcaS respect to this point." 

As to the plan of revision, ""adopted by the Bible TTnion, it is well 
known to those conversant with the facts in the case, that, at the out- 
set, two propositions were considered ; one for having the new version 
all made by one translator, which, it was thought, would secure the 
greatest unity and harmony throughout the work ; and one for having it 
made in : several portions, by various independent scholars ; and that the 
latter proposition, so modified or qualified as to provide for the requisite 
unity and harmony of the different parts, by an interchange of criticisms 
fcinong all the revisers, : atid : a final review of the work, as a whole, l by a 


committee of scholars, acting in concert, was agreed upon, and estab- 
lished as the Bible Union's plan of revision. And so strict was the ad- 
herence of the Board to this distinctive feature of the plan, in making 
a contract with Dr. Conant, that, while he insisted, that during his nat- 
ural life no alteration should be made in his translation without his con- 
sent, he was required and bound by the terms of his contract to submit 
his work to other scholars for examination, and to review his work with 
the aid of their criticisms, before preparing the final copy. So that such 
examination was, as Dr. Maclay alleges, " required by the general- plan 
of the Union, and the special contract with Dr. Conant." And it is 
worthy of note that while the Committee attempt to take the case out 
of the general plan of revision, they evade at this point the " special 
contract," which requires this examination, independent of the general 
plan. It is true, they say in another place, that, 

" In accordance with the contract, Dr. Conant carefully examines any criticism 
upon his revision, sent to him, and corrects the revision as it requires." 

But how is this possible, when the contract requires that the revision 
shall be examined and criticised by other scholars, and corrected by the 
author, as their criticisms may require, before the final copy is prepared ; 
and yet before any other scholar has ever seen that revision it is stereo- 
typed in six different sets of plates ? How such men as Lynd, Pierce, 
and Swaim, can declare this to be " in accordance with the contract," I 
cannot reconcile with their reputation for candor and truth ; especially 
when they undertake, in another place, to justify the making of so many 
stereotype plates more than the Board had authorized, not by the condi- 
tions of the contract, but on the ground that Dr. Conant had stated 
(with how much deference to other scholars, I need not say), that, 

" There \vas no human probability, that after examining all subsequent criticisms 
upon the work, he would find reason to make such changes as would materially 
aifect the value of the plates." 

Again, Dr. Maclay, speaking of the investigation of the first Com- 
mittee, says : 

"It was found that the Hebrew of Job had been, by order of the Secretary, 
without the knowledge of the Board, stereotyped iu three different forms, the last 
of which was to be a purely Hebrew book, -with various readings and grammatical 
notes, for the use of students learning the Hebrew language ; such a book as a soci- 
ety, whose only and exclusive object is ' to procure and circulate the most faithful 
versions of the Holy Scriptures, in all languages, throughout the world,' has no 
right to publish." 

To this the Committee of Investigation reply as follows : 

" As to the charge that one of the forms is a purely Hebrew work, with various 
readings and grammatical notes, it is sufficient to say that no plates have been cast 
with various readings and grammatical notes." 

This is an evasion and equivocation which I was not prepared to expect 


from such men as S. W. Lynd, Alvah Pierce, Edward James, and Thom- 
as Swairu. They profess to have a knowledge of " the facts " in this 
case, " learned upon examination. 1 ' If they are honest in that profession, 
they know that the plates for two 32mo editions of Job in Hebrew, one 
.without and one with, grammatical notes, were ordered ; that the plates 
for the title pages of both, one having on it the inscription, "With 
grammatical notes, by T. J. COXANT," were cast ; * that on the cover of 
the MontJdy, and elsewhere, as early as October, 1855, the officers of 
the Bible Union published, under the head of "Books passing through 
the press," the following advertisement : 

"THE BOOK OF JOB One Volume 32mo. The original Hebrew text, with 
various readings, critically edited for the American Bible Union. To which are 
added Grammatical Notes on the Hebrew Text, making the book very valuable 
to students in Theological Seminaries, and to many other persons who have some 
knowledge of Hebrew, but not enough to cope with the grammatical peculiari- 
ties of this most ancient sacred poem." 

Now, after all this, for Messrs. Lynd, Pierce, Swaim, and others, to 
undertake to shield a Secretary from the charge of having a Hebrew 
school-book stereotyped without any authority from the Board, by de- 
claring that "no plates have been cast with various readings and grammat- 
ical notes," is a sheer quibble, which not only does violence to truth, but 
is artfully adapted to mislead the public mind. But suppose that after 
the thing has been exposed, the "grammatical notes" be left out, and 
the " Hebrew text, with various readings," be now published by itself, 
as advertised in the Quarterly for February, 1857, I would like to have 
any one tell me, how the American Bible Union can legitimately or hon- 
estly expend one dollar in the publication of such a Hebrew book, hav- 
ing no connection with any translation, but being designed and specially 
adapted to the use of schools. It is all wrong ; and the men who lend 
the influence of their names and the weight of their characters to justify 
or cover up such wrongs, instead of permanently satisfying the public 
mind, swell the current of misrepresentation, which threatens to sweep 
away the very foundation of all confidence in the probity of men. 

In Dr. Maclay's letter some examples of translation were cited, from 
the Gospel of John, as revised for the Bible Union by Rev. J. W. Mor- 
ton, to show the importance of adhering to the original plan ; subject- 
ing each reviser's work to the examination and criticism of every other 
reviser ; to which the officers of the TJnion reply as follows .: 

" The work has not been published, and, therefore, the Bible Union is in no way 
responsible for them." 

The Committee of Investigation echo the same sentiment, thus : 

"Unless the Committee on Versions recommend, and the Board approve and 
publish, they cannot be held responsible for improper translations." 

* A printed impression from these plates is in my possession, and can be eeeii 
by anyone who wants more certain evidence of the facts here stated. 



It is astonishing that such a doctrine should be promulged by men 
who understand so well the limitations of human responsibility. There 
is not a code of morals, from the statute-book of the divine government 
down to the meagerest haud-book of civilization, which does not hold 
the Bible Union responsible for all the translations which it has caused 
to be made. 

But so far as the point in question is concerned it matters not where 
the responsibility falls. The competency or ineornpetency of a transla- 
tor is, in all cases, unerringly indicated by the character of his transla- 
tions. And if improper translations have been made by a translator of 
the Bible Union, the importance of a strict application of the rules estab- 
lished for the rectification of erroneous renderings, is thereby demonstra- 
ted. This, the real point in Dr. Maclay's reasoning, is not met, but 
rather evaded, by the officers and the Committee of Investigation. 
The latter allege that, 

" The Committee find upon examination that the portion from which Dr. Maclay 
quoted certain passages, consisted of proof-sheets, which had been stitched in pa- 
per covers, and taken to the semi-annual meeting, held at Chicago, in May, 1855, 
with a view to their being examined by a Committee." 

the portion from which Dr. Maclay quoted certain passages " 
comprises the first eleven chapters of John, as revised for the Bible 
Union, by Rev. J. W. Morton. It did not consist of " proof-sheets ; * 
as the following testimonies fully prove. In the Bible Union Reporter,, 
for August, 1854, " the officers at the Rooms " say : 

" The Gospel of John is now in the hands of the printer." 

In the Annual Report of the Bible Union, published October, 1854, 
Mr. Wyckoff says : 

" We have now in press the Gospel of John, of which about eigfdeen chapters art 
already PRINTED." 

In the Annual Report of the Revision Association, written about the 
first of April, 1855, Mr. Edmunds says : 

The Gospel of John has been stereotyped for several months." 

Thus, it appears from official documents, that in October, 1854, the 
revised version of John, having been stereotyped, was passing through 
the press, and about eighteen chapters were "already PRINTED." Is it 
credible, then, that in May, 1855, the officers of the Bible Union left, 
in New York, the revision of John, which had been print ed from stere- 
otype plates, and took with them only the "proof-sheets " of that work, 
for the examination of a Committee in Chicago ? It is not so strange 1 
that a confiding public, having no knowledge or no remembrance of the 
official statements above cited, should credit the declarations of that 
august Committee, as it is, that the Committee themselves should, " upon 
examination " of the facts in the case, believe their own testimony, in a 


thing so perfectly absurd. The revision of John from which those quo- 
tations were made is now in my possession, and any one who shall take 
the trouble to inspect it, will " find upon examination " that " the por- 
tion from which Dr. Maclay quoted certain passages " does not consist 
of " proof-sheets." 

Here the Committee of Investigation have placed themselves in a 
very unenviable predicament. It is proved to be a fact, beyond the pos- 
sibility of a reasonable doubt, that " the portion from which Dr. Maclay 
quoted certain passages," did not consist of " proof-sheets." The Com- 
mittee either knew this fact, or they did not ; if they knew it, their 
statement was a palpable contradiction of their knowledge ; if they did 
not know it, their statement was a positive denial of their ignorance. 
In either case, therefore, their statement appears to be an intentional 
violation of truth ; in order to make out that the exceptionable transla- 
tions in question, were found only in " proof-sheets," for which the officers 
say, " the Bible Union is in no way responsible." 

If any one can, without disregarding the essential, incontrovertible 
facts in the case, come to a more charitable conclusion, I shall be most 
happy to acquiesce in it ; for it is painful to think that a large Commit- 
tee of respectable men, appointed by a religious Society, to make an in- 
vestigation of its affairs, on the result of which the public are expected 
to rely with perfect confidence men who have been applauded before 
the world, as all but infallible should impeach their own veracity by 
professing to " find upon examination " what really had no existence, and 
consequently could not be found. 

The Committee of Investigation state that after the revised version 
has been stereotyped, 

" The plates are still subject to change, modern improvement rendering it nearly at 
tasy to alter them as to alter type." 

For several years I have been conversant with the business of print- 
ing and publishing. I had really begun to regard myself as pretty well 
acquainted with the various operations of typography. But I confess 
my ignorance of this important discovery. And I know of many adepts 
in the art of printing, who would be glad to have Messrs. Lynd, James, 
Pierce, Powell and Swaim explain more particularly the " modern im- 
provement" by which stereotype plates can be altered " nearly as easy" 
as type. Some of these gentlemen may yet be invited to lecture on the 
subject before the New York Printers' Association. They will do well 
to hold themselves in readiness. 

It would seem that changes are made without stint in the plates of 
the Bible Union. For the Committee of Investigation tell us that, 

" Of the eight examples given by Dr. Maclay [which, as it has been proved, were 
printed from the stereotype plates of John], four have been altered." 

Now, admitting that by means of the " modern improvement " dis- 
sovered by the Committee of Investigation, alterations can be made in 


stereotype plates with so much facility, and without additional expense, 
is not so much rechanging a significant fact in relation to the qualifica- 
tions of the reviser and the character of his work ? One half the chan- 
ges made in the common version, rechanged after the work has been 
submitted to the Board, examined and recommended by the Committee 
on Yersions ! after it has been stereotyped, and an edition of a thousand 
copies printed I What must be the indecision of a reviser, who, after 
his work has been once completed, submitted and stereotyped, can pro- 
ceed to amend one half of the changes so recently made by himself ? 
How insufficient must have been the authority on which those changes 
were first made, to allow their alteration so soon ! 

Dr. Maclay says he "found extensive notes of a doctrinal and practi- 
cal nature, which were alike foreign to the work of translation, and in- 
consistent with the unsectarian character of the Union." The Committee 
of Investigation cite two resolutions of the Board, with their preambles ; 
in which it is admitted, that "doctrinal and theological discussions have 
been introduced into the notes of some of our revisers, not necessary to 
the translation, nor to any authorities sustaining it ; and in which it is 
resolved that " the introduction of such notes ought to be carefully 
avoided ;" upon which that Committee aver that, 

" In no manuscript yet examined by the Committee on Versions, and ordered to 
be printed, have these resolutions been violated. The notes referred to in the alle- 
gation were taken also from proof-sheets." " The Committee consider the allega- 
tion unsustained." 

But will Messrs. Lynd, James, Pierce, Powell and Swaim, tell us how 
such notes could be found in proof-sheets, if they had existed "in no 
manuscript yet examined by the Committee on Versions, and ordered to 
be printed " ? Were they interpolated by the printer ? Or was the re- 
vision of John in proof-sheets before it was in manuscript " examined by 
the Committee on Yersions " ? before it was " ordered to be printed " ? 

Let us see whether these resolutions have not been violated ; whether 
the notes in question were taken from proof-sheets ; whether the allega- 
tion of Dr. Maclay on this point is " unsustained." In the copy of John 
as revised by Rev. J. W. Morton, a Seventh-day Baptist, and printed 
from stereotype plates, I find, among " extensive notes of a doctrinal 
and practical character," the following : 

" The personal Spirit is never properly said to have begotten the humanity of 
the Messiah." " The resurrection of our Lord did not, as is commonly supposed, 
take place on the morning of the first day of the week ; but in the evening of 
the Sabbath, probably at the very close of the day of rest ; * * * at the 
precise point that separated between the last and the first days of the week." 
'' There is no evidence that our Lord was crucified on the sixth day of the week." 

In the Introduction to this volume of "proof-sheets," printed from 
stereotype plates, the author of the above notes says he " has tried to 
divest his work of everything of a partisan or sectarian character." 

The question of "proof-sheets " has been disposed of. The resolutions 


cited by the Committee of Investigation were not prepared and passed 
until after Dr. Maclay had called the attention of the Committee on 
Versions to the existence of such notes. And now are we to be told, 
by Messrs. Lynd, James, Powell, Pierce and Swaim, that such notes as 
the above, quoted from Mr. Morton's revision of John, are not " practi- 
cal," "doctrinal," "theological," and "sectarian"; or that they were 
not in his manuscript, when it was " examined by the Committee on 
Versions," and upon their recommendation " ordered to be printed"? 
I cannot imagine how such men were ever induced to sign their names 
to such statements. 

^ The. prindpk of translation, adopted ly the Bible Union, has leen grossly 

The first of the " General Rules for the Direction of Translators and 
Revisers employed by the American Bible Union," reads thus : 

' " The exact meaning of the inspired text as that text expressed it to those who understood 
the original Scriptures at the time they were first written, must be translated by corresponding 
words and phrases, so far as t':ey can be found, in the vernacular tongue of those for whom 
the version is designed, with the least possible obscurity or indefiniteness." 

The principle on which this rule was based underlies the whole super- 
structure of the Bible Union, as a translation Society. By this rule 
that Institution has been most, successfully vindicated from the oft- 
repeated charges of sectarianism. It has always been set forth as the 
only general, fundamental rule prescribed by the Bible Union for the 
guidance of its revisers and translators. The above is the only form of 
the Rule ever authorized by the Board or the Union, and is substan- 
tially the same as is found in every contract made with baptists ; 
yet I found, to my utter astonishment, that the rule in question, which 
was supposed to have been given to every reviser in the same form, had 
been modified in one instance, as follows : 

"The exact meaning of the inspired text, at the time when it -was first written, 
to be given with the least possible obscurity and indefiniteness, in terms of vernac- 
ular English, corresponding, so far as they can be found, to those of the Greek in 
like extent of common, secular use ; and if, in any case, for want of a term of such kind, 
which will convey the meaning of the Greek with sufficient exactness, a term be 
used, derived from the Greek, and having an ecclesiastical or sacred use only, then 
ihe term of common secular use in English, which most nearly corresponds to that of the 
Greek, to be given in a note." 

In the contract of another pedobaptist, I find the authorized form of 
that rule amended as follows : 

" The exact meaning of the inspired text, as that text expressed it to those who 
understood the original, at the time first written, must be translated by correspon- 
ding words and phrases, those of the Greek in like currency and extent of secular as 
well as religious use. so far as such words and phrases can be found ; and if for want 
of them, terms be used derived from the Greek, then the terms of vernacular English, 
which most nearly answer to the above description, to be given in notes." 

The nature of these alterations, taken in connection with tht, fact that 
they are found only in contracts made with such pedobaptists as were 



considered most likely to retain " baptize " in the revised version, shows 
conclusively that the man who made them, without the authority or 
knowledge of the Board, was determined to secure, in place of that 
term, the substitution of some word in " common secular use ; " if not in 
the text, at least in the margin. The bearing and design of these 
modifications are too obvious to admit of any doubt. 

The contracts containing the above modifications are those made with 
Rev. A. S. Thelwall and Rev. T. Boys. The former, on comparing the 
rule as given to him with the form in which it was given to the latter, 
wrote under date of July 25, 1853, as follows : 

"I duly received yours of the 20th, inclosing two copies of the agreement 
But the alteration made in the first Eule made it desirable to take some time for 
consideration, and I wished to consult with my friend the Rev. T. Boys. I found 
that the Rule as he had signed it was not verbally the same as that sent to me. 
Is not this a pity ? Has there not been some want of judgment and method ia 
making the arrangements to occasion this diversity ? Ought not the Rules to 
have been so carefully considered and worded that they might have been present- 
ed to each person, who is requested to subscribe them, in precisely the same form 
and words ? Is there not some danger that difficulties and disputes may one day 
arise from this want of uniformity ?" 

If Mr. Thelwall could speak thus on comparing the rule as contained 
in his contract with the form of it in Mr. Boys' agreement, what would 
he have done had he seen the form of that rule, as found in contracts 
made with Baptists ? !N~o right-minded man would be likely to look 
with favor upon such maneuvering to secure any end whatever. If the 
alteration were right in itself, it could not be properly made by an indi- 
vidual without the authority or knowledge of the Board. But the alter- 
ation is wrong in principle and totally incompatible with the unsectarian 
character of the Bible TJnion, as it was originally constituted. For, if a 
word in the common English version conveys distinctly and definitely the 
meaning of the original, and is well understood, the fact that it is not 
in "common, secular use," is not a sufficient reason for its abandonment j 
and the existence under the seal of the Bible Union, of a rule which 
would compel revisers to substitute some other word for " baptize," if 
no other reason could be found, simply because it was not in " common 
secular use," stamps that Institution with a sectarian character for which 
I -desire to be in no way responsible. 

The. plan of revision, adopted by tJie Bible Union, has been practically 

It was not until after extensive correspondence and mature delibera- 
tion, during which one Plan of Revision was thoroughly canvassed and 
rejected, that the Plan for the Revision of the English New Testament, 
on which the work was at length undertaken, was approved and adopted. 
And it must be obvious that no material alteration of that Plan could 
be safely or justly made, while the work was in progress, without the 
general consent of the revisers, and a deliberate act of the Board ; as 
the Plan upon which the work was to be done, necessarily constituted an 
essential condition of the contracts between the Board and the Revisers. 


Yet, it appears that an assumption of power by the Committee on Yer- 
sions has led to a radical change in the operation of that Plan, irrespec- 
tive of the Revisers, the Board, or the Union. Although a member of 
the Committee on Yersions from the beginning, Dr. Armitage's letter 
of December 6th, 1855, was the first intimation I ever had of that 
assumption of power, which Dr. Maclay has well termed, 

" The prerogative of passing judgment upon the merits of every reviser's work, 
selecting such as they considered fit to be printed and subjected to the criticism 
of the other revisers, as ' the basis of the final examination ; ' laying aside others 
to be submitted, without such criticism or revision, in manuscript, to the final body 
of judges ; and setting apart others to be used merely as ' aid to others who will 
do the work more thoroughly ; ' with the additional prerogative of publishing to 
the wide world whatever revision they might approve for the purpose, without the 
previous inspection of any one else but themselves and the author." 

I knew very well, that, in order to gratify a laudable desire of the" 
people to possess some specimens of revision, and thus to increase their 
interest in the work, it had been deemed, by a majority of the Board, 
advisable to print, in addition to the copies required by the Plan for the 
criticism of other revisers, a small edition of the most creditable portions 
for general circulation ; and that this had led to a cursory examination 
of each portion by the Committee on Yersions, with special reference to 
this general circulation. But the general circulation of a revision pre- 
vious to any examination by revisers other than the author, was purely 
incidental, and apart from the original design ; and I so regarded the 
examination made by the Committee on Yersions, which had been origin- 
ally induced with direct reference to such premature circulation. I had 
never had the remotest idea that the judgment of that Committee was 
to be interposed between the author of any revision and the other re- 
visers, so as to determine the merits of his work and prevent it from 
being sent to them, as required by the Plan, for their examination and 
criticism, and thereby deprive the author of the opportunity to re- 
revise his work with the aid of such criticisms, previous to the adjudi- 
cation of a final Committee. But such was the alarming assumption of 
the Committee on Yersions. I call it an alarming assumption because 
it contravenes a fundamental rule in the Plan of Revision adopted by the 
Union, and because it is, in its operation, unjust and unsafe. 

" The plan contemplates that the whole of the New Testament shall be appor- 
tioned among the most competent of the scholars thus employed, who, when they 
have finished each his own part, shall meet in this city, at the expense of the Union, 
and shall here go over the work conjointly, and decide upon it as a whole. To 
illustrate this view, the Committee will adduce an imaginary example. Suppose 
that the correction of the Epistle to the Hebrews be assigned to President Dagg 
and Prof. Crawford, and that they be invited, after finishing their work, to meet aa 
members of the Convention finally to adjudicate upon the whole." 

In this Plan it certainly was not contemplated that any Committee 
of the Board would sit in judgment on the work of a reviser. The re- 
visers themselves are made the sole judges in the case, first individually, 
and finally in Convention. The Rule to which I referred was enacted 


by the Board, in February, 1852, as the Fourth Instruction to Revisers ; 
and reads as follows : 

"As soon as the revision of any one book of the New Testament is finished, it 
shall be sent to the Secretary of the Bible Union, or to such other person as shall 
be designated by the Committee on Versions, in order that copies taken 
and furnished to the revisers of the other books, to be returned with their sugges- 
tions to the reviser or revisers of that book. After being re-revised, with the aid 
of their suggestions, a carefully-prepared copy shall be forwarded to the Secre- 

In perfect accordance with the foregoing is the following Report, 
made to the Bible Convention at Memphis, in April, 1852, by Dr. Ar- 
mitage, as chairman of a Committee on the Plan of Revision adopted 
by the American Bible Union : 

" " As soon as the revision of any one book of the New Testament is finished, it 
shall be sent to the Secretary of the Bible Union, or such other person as shall be 
deeignated by the Committee on Versions, in order that copies may be taken, and 
furnished to the revisers of the other books, to be returned with their suggestions 
to the reviser or revisers of that book. After being re-revised with the aid of 
these suggestions, a carefully-prepared copy shall be forwarded to the Secretary. 

"For the execution of this plan according to these principles and rules, a special 
Committee, known as the Committee on Versions, has been appointed by the Board 
of the Union, subject to their dictation and authority. Through this Committee 
an extensive correspondence has been held with the principal scholars in all sec- 
tions of the United States, and in Great Britain, and other foreign countries. 
The result of this correspondence has been the recommendation and approval of 
the following plan : 

" 1. The whole New Testament to be divided, and apportioned among a large 
number of competent scholars, of different religious denominations, acting individ- 
ually, or in companies, in all parts of this country and in Great Britain. 

" When all the different parts assigned to the individuals or companies, respec- 
tively, shall have been finished, the reviser of each, or the representative of the 
company of the revisers of each, shall meet together and go over the whole work 

Here we have not only the essential features of the Plan, but the ob- 
ject and duties of the Committee on Versions ; and there is not in all 
the slightest intimation that the merits of any reviser's work was to be 
determined by that Committee. Again, in the Appendix to the Third 
Annual Report, Rev. S. W. Lynd, D. D., speaking of the Bible Union, 
says : 

" Their plan is to divide and apportion the New Testament among a large'num- 
ber of competent scholars of diiferent religious denominations in all parts of this 
country and Great Britain. The revisers are to examine every Greek word or 
phrase in the translation of which the phraseology of the common version ia 
changed in every other place in which it occurs, and to give their views as to the 
proper translation in each place. They are required to cite authorities for any im- 
portant change. As soon as the revision of any one book is finished, it passes into 
the hands of all the revisers, to be sent back with their suggestions. Each reviser 
has then to review his work, and furnish a fair copy ; and when all the different 
parts assigned to the individuals or companies, respectively, shall have been fin- 
ished, a Committee of the revisers shall be chosen to meet together, and go over 
the work conjointly." 


Again, in January, 1853, an official paper was published over the sig- 
natures of S. H. Cone, D.D., as President, Wm. Colgate, Esq., Treasurer, 
and Win. H. Wyckoff, Esq., Secretary, of the Bible Union ; in which 
the following statement, from the pen of Mr. Wyckoff, is thus officially 
endorsed by these officers. They say : 

" In accordance with the plan of the American Bible TJnion for the revision of 
the English New Testament, the work of each of the revisers MDST be subjected to the crit- 
ical examination of the rest, and of such other scholars as have expressed a willingness 
to assist ; and after being again revised by the author, with the aid of their sug- 
gestions, be submitted to a Committee of revisers appointed by the Union for final 
adjudication upon every word and phrase." 

Now, by the foregoing testimonies it is plainly and positively proved 
that, by the Plan and Rules adopted by the Bible Union for the revision 
of the English New Testament, the Board was bound, (1.) to employ 
competent scholars to do the work, the whole being apportioned among 
them ; (2.) to subject the work of each reviser or set of revisers to the 
inspection of the other revisers for their criticisms ; (3.) to have such 
work re-revised by the author, with the aid of those criticisms ; (4.) to 
submit all the revisions so made to a Committee of first-rate scholars, to 
be appointed by the Union, for final adjudication ; and (5.) to fulfil these 
conditions, as the terms of agreement on which every reviser was em- 

It is also evident, from the foregoing, that the legitimate business of 
the Committee on Versions was that of an agent, acting for the Board, 
in selecting and employing such scholars, apportioning the work among 
them ; transmitting the several parts from one reviser to the other, and 
finally to the ultimate body of judges " appointed by the Union ; " and 
that that Committee was never raised, as it certainly was not qualified, 
to sit in judgment on the work of competent revisers. 

Now, the prerogative claimed for the Committee on Yersions included 
the power (1.) to keep the work of a reviser with or without examin- 
ation for any length of time ; (2.) to prevent any one else but them- 
selves from examining it ; (3.) to determine which of several revisions 
of the same book " embraces those requisites which the fiual Committee 
will need, in order to impartially determine upon the changes to be ad- 
mitted into the common Version for its improvement ;" (4.) to have such 
revision alone printed as "the basis of the final examination ;" and (5.) 
. to publish to the world, .without any other examination, the revision of 
their choice. And this power has been used with the largest liberty. 
For, to say nothing of the revisions of all the books of the New Testa- 
ment, made by different scholars in England, which have been for the 
most part thrown aside as useless, the Gospel of Mark, revised by Ed- 
ward Maturin ; Luke, first by Rev. James Shannon, then by Rev. Joseph 
Muenscher, D.D. ; Acts, by Alexander Campbell ; Romans, first by 
Rev. P. Schaff, D.D. ; then by Prof. E. Adkins ; Galatians, by Rev. S. 
W. Lynd, D.D. ; Ephesians, by Rev. John Forsyth, D.D. ; Philippians, 
by Eld. S. E. Shepard ; Colossians, by Rev. W. P. Strickland, D.D. ; 
Timothy, Titus, Philemon, Hebrews, James; and 1 Peter, by Rev. James 


Lillie, D.D. ; have all been finished and put into the hands of the Com- 
mittee on Versions ; some of them three or four years ago ; aud yet 
not a single copy of the .above-named revisions has been " furnished to 
the revisers of the other books, to be returned with their suggestions," 
as the Rule requires. In October, 1852, four years and a half ago, Mr. 
Wyckoff wrote in the Annual Report, thus : 

" Several of the revisers have sent in the whole or portions of their work." 

In October, 1853, three years and a half ago, Mr. Wyckoff writes in 
the Annual Report, thus : 

" One revision of Ephesians Las been received ; one of Galatians ; and the MSS. 
of 1st and 2d Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, &c., has been partially examined by the 
Committee on Versions." 

These things took place while I was a member of the Committee on 
Yersions ; but I always regarded the examinations by that Committee 
as having reference solely to the surplus publication, and nearly every 
thing in that Committee was allowed to wait the motion of Mr. Wyckoff, 
by whom it was directly or indirectly controlled ; and I was not then 
aware that the Committee laid claim to any such power ; nor did I 
dream that the Rule, which required copies of each revision to be sent 
to the other revisers, would be permanently disregarded. And I was 
alarmed when I saw the assumption of power by that Committee, as 
indicated in the letter of Dr. Armitage. For it was evident that such 
power, in the hands of that Committee, would obliterate the most im- 
portant features of the original Plan. Whereas that Plan was designed 
and adapted to furnish all the revisers with the same opportunity of 
bringing their works to the highest degree of excellence, the policy of 
the Committee deprives some of the benefit of others' criticisms and of 
the opportunity of re-revising their own work with the aid of such sug- 
gestions. Whereas the original Plan was designed and adapted to 
afford the most general satisfaction to revisers by giving the works of 
all to the final judges in a manner and form equally favorable to their 
approval, the practice of the Committee, in submitting some in print 
after re-revision, and others in manuscript, without re-revision, not only 
lays the foundation for just complaint and dissatisfaction, but fixes a 
seal of merit or demerit upon every revision according to the estimate 
of incompetent judges. I mean no personal disrespect. But duty re- 
quires me to pronounce the Committee on Versions incompetent to 
determine the merits of revisions made by scholars. Three of that Com- 
mittee, Messrs. Armitage, Smith and Sarles, make no pretensions to 
critical learning. The other two, Messrs. Wyckoff and Baker, if they 
were ever adept in the original languages of the Bible, have been too 
much occupied with other things to be qualified to sit in judgment on the 
work of men, who have some of them for a lifetime given themselves 
wholly to the study of biblical science. Such an assumption of power ; 
such a change of the original Plan, is in my opinion unjust and unsafe, 
and must go far to defeat the original object of the Bible Union. 


The Committee of Investigation, in replying to Dr. Maclay,. on this 
point, say : 

" The allegation that the Secretary has changed the polic j of the Union is not 
sustained." " The practice of the Committee on Versions, in regard to printing 
only such revisions as may be suitable to put into the hands of the Final Board 
of Revisers, meets the full approbation of the Committee of Investigation." 

The truth is, no such allegation is made in Dr. Maclay's pamphlet. 
He there distinctly charges this violation of the established rules of the 
Bible Union upon the Committee on Versions. And in the above ex- 
tract from the Report of the Committee of Investigation it is admitted 
that the Committee on Versions determine what revisions are, and what 
are not " suitable to put into the hands of the Final Board of &evisers,' r 
and that they print such as they deem suitable for that purpose, and 
reject such as are in their judgment unsuitable ; which practice " meets 
the full approbation of the Committee of Investigation." Yet the 
Chairman of that Committee, Rev. S. W. Lynd, D.I)., when preaching 
a sermon before the Revision Association, in 1855, laid down six rules, 
which he said " the American Bible Union originated," of which the fourth 
and sixth read thus : 

"The work of every reviser should be examined by every other reviser, anl be return- 
ed with suggestions, and then each reviser should be required to go over his work 
with the aid of these suggestions." 

" Finally, it should be submitted to a college of the revisers, who should remain 
in session until the work is completed and made ready for the press."* 

Again, in an official document of the Bible Revision Association, of 
which Dr. Lynd was President at the time of its publication, in 1856, 
just before his Report in behalf of the Investigating Committee, it is 
said : 

" Each book revised has not only to pass the inspection of all the scholars en- 
gaged on the other books, but has to be examined by each of the [300] critics 
before it goes to press." 

How Dr. Lynd could preach the doctrines of those rules, and at the 
same time approve the admitted practice of the Committee on Versions ; 
or how such men as Alvah Pierce and Thomas Swairn could solemnly 
affirm that Dr. Maclay's allegation of a deviation from these rules in 
the practice of the Committee on Versions, was not sustained, surpasses 
my comprehension. 

The American Bible Union lias recently adopted a principle and policy in 
relation to the text of the New Testament which unsettles the otily foundation 
of a revised version of the Holy Scriptures in the English or any other lan- 

It was originally agreed upon, and established, by the Board of the 

* Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Bible Revision Association 
pp. 48-51. 


Bible Union, as one of the " Special Instructions to the Revisers of the 
English New Testament," that, "The common English version must be 
the basis of the Revision." Then, Dr. Lynd, in his Address before the 
Bible Union, October, 1852, says : 

" The old family Bible, unaltered, is now ' the commonly received version.' Lei 
it continue to be so until a perspicuous and faithful revision can be secured. Lef 
all revision men throughout Christendom reject the new edition by the American Bible 
Society ; reject it from their family worship, their Sunday schools, their pulpits, 
so that it never can become ' the commonly received version.' " 

Yet at the meeting of the Board in September, 1856, Dr. Lynd being 
present, and concurring, it was decided that " The English version, as 
published by the American Bible Society, in their collated octavo edition 
of 1854, shall be the basis of the Revision." 

This, however, is of trifling consequence, compared with what has 
been decided and done in relation to the Greek text. 

It is well known to scholars, that, in addition to the Stephanie text, 
otherwise called the texlus receptus, there are several other collations of 
the Greek New Testament, answering to the differing judgments of their 
respective authors upon the various readings of manuscripts and ancient 
versions. Soon after the Bible Union was formed, before the work of 
revision was commenced, the selection of one of these, as the foundation 
of a revised English version, was carefully considered. It was well un- 
derstood, that, as Dr. Williams says, " the Greek texts of the several 
critical editors widely differ, as to accuracy, fulness and orthodoxy." 
But all things considered, it was deemed right and most judicious, under 
existing circumstances, to adopt the " received text," as recently pub- 
lished by Bagster and Sons. So, it will be recollected, when Dr. Wil- 
liams alleged that the Bible Union was, 

" "Withholding from the Baptist churches, thus invoked for help, the statement 
of the particular Greek text, which you announce yourselves to have selected, as 
the basis of your critical labors," 

It was stated in the official reply of the Bible Union, that, 

" This subject received our early and prayerful attention, and after obtaining 
the most satisfactory information respecting it, with the counsel of competent ad- 
visers, and our own mature deliberation, we determined to use the ' received text,' 
as critically edited by the best scholars of the age, and published by Bagster and 
Sons, London, octavo edition, 1851." 

Here we have, not only the text, but the particular edition, and the 
date of its publication, officially announced, under circumstances which 
gave to that announcement the greatest possible weight. In perfect 
accordance with this, the first of the " Special Instructions to the Revi- 
sers of the English New Testament," says : 

u The common English version must be the basis of the revision : the Greek 
text, Bagster and Sons' octavo edition of 1851." 


In pursuance of this official instruction, I find, in all the written eon- 
tracts of the Union with its revisers, which I have examined, the follow- 
ing unqualified stipulation : 

" The Greek text to be used, that of Mill, as printed in Messrs. Bagster and Sous 
8vo large print Greek Testament of 1851.?' 

Accordingly, most of the revisers have confined themselves to the 
" received text ; " and so strictly was this instruction originally held by 
the author of the first revision, which the Bible Union published, in 
1852, that, in the preface to that work, he advertises the reader that 
" he had not considered himself, in every instance, bound by the punc- 
tuation of the Greek text ; " leaving the reader to infer that he had 
considered himself in every instance bound by the text itself. 

At length, however, it was discovered, as if by some new light, that 
the received Greek text contained " the grossest corruption." And in a 
book, written by James Edmunds and T. S. Bell, " on behalf of the Re- 
vision Association," and " published/' accoiding to the last Annual Re- 
port of the Bible Union, "by the Association," and advertised, recom- 
mended and sold by the officers of the Union, I find a profusion of state- 
ments like the following ; 

"Now what is the original text? Where is it? Who has seen it ? We have proved 
in the presence of the four clergymen the grossest corruption in the Greek textus re- 
ceptus." "And we now say, fearless of confutation, that the condition of the Greek 
texius receptus is as disgraceful to the scholarship of this age, as the. state of the English ver- 
sion is to the biblical science of the times ;" and in the vast number of shocking trans- 
lations we have summoned from that, in its gross absurdities and glaring contradictions, 
the four clergymen have not been able to find a single place, on which to make a 
defence." " We can refer only to a few of the many spurious matters in our ver- 
sion. For instance, the entire nine verses at the close of the 16th chapter of 
Mark ; the Gethsemane scene in Luke 22 : 43, 44 ; John, 5:4; the disturbance of 
the pool by an angel, from 53d verse of the 7th chapter of John to the llth verse 
of the 8th chapter j the scene of the woman taken in adultery, Luke 9 : 54, 55, 56 j 

and Luke 23 : 24, are pronounced spurious passages that have not the least author- 
rid to stand upon." "In Matt. 5 : 22, ' without a cause ' is spurious." 

ity in the world 

&c., in Matt. 18 22, 23, are spurious." "In Matt.23 : 35, a probable false text 
and false rendering." "Nor did the Holy Spirit write the statement as it is in 
the received Greek text, and in our common version " of Heb. 9 : 3, 4. 

As such views of the received Greek text, which the Bible Union had 
adopted as the standard of revision, prevailed, the persons who enter- 
tained them came very naturally to the conclusion that the original 
needed as much revision as the translation. And there was, among the 
" General Rules for the Direction of Translators and Revisers," the fol- 
lowing : 

"Translations and revisions of the New Testament shall be made from the re- 
ceived Greek text, critically edited, with known errors corrected." 

Which, though it was not originally intended to authorize any altera- 


tions to be thereafter made in the received text, by the revisers of the 
Union, but only to describe that text, as having been already "critically 
edited, with known errors corrected," was nevertheless so interpreted by 
the Secretary and certain revisers of the Union, as to require revisers 
of the English version to revise also the Greek test. But how to de- 
termine the " known errors," there seems not to have been, previous to 
October, 1856, any general or satisfactory understanding. Eor in 1854, 
Eev. John Lillie, D.D., wrote, in the Introduction to his revision of the 
last six books of the New Testament, as follows : 

"In what way shall we safely distinguish, in the crowd of questionable readings, 
hat may fairly lie regarded as the ' known errors,' of which our plan requires the 
correction ? The present writer could think of no test so simple and satisfactory, 
as the general consent of lie critical afriors however differing in their principles of 
recension -for the last hundred years. While this rule would no more than any other 
secure a perfect text, or even all the preferable readings, its operation, so far as it 
went, seemed likely to be attended with the least perplexity or doubt." 

Rev. J. W. Morton, in the Introduction to his revision of John, ste- 
reotyped in 1855, says : 

" Bagster and Sons' octavo edition of 1851, with known errors corrected, is the 
standard Greek text." " As it is the desire of the A. B. Union, that known errors 
In the text, that is made the basis of their operations, should be corrected. I have 
conceived it to be nay duty carefully to compare the results of the labors of the 
various critics, who have produced new and corrected editions of the Greek." 
" The reviser is left to judge, from the best light he can obtain, what are known, 
errors. This discretionary power has occasioned no small difficulty in the prosecu- 
tion of this work. I suppose a known error may be denned to be any reading which 
the reviser may feel perfectly satisfied, from the evidences before him, is not in 
accordance with the autograph of the first penman. But here a difficult question 
presents itself. How shall the reviser make up his mind, in relation to a proposed 
reading ? There are several ways in which this might be done : 1. By examining 
for himself all the original sources of evidence. This, in the present instance, no 
reasonable person could expect. * * * 2. By adopting those emenda- 
tions, in which all the learned editors agree, and rejecting all others. This plan is 
certainly very simple, and convenient, and its adoption would relieve one of a 
great load of responsibility ; but I have not seen my way quite clear to adopt it, 
for the following reasons: (1.) Because, if unanimity be the object sought after, it 
is by no means attained in this way ; since, not only ^till but Stephens, and in most 
cases. Erasmus, Beza, and the editors of the Elzevir and Complutensian editions, 
are disregarded in the application of this rule ; for these all substantially agree, 
except in the Apocalypse, of which the Complutensian and earlier Erasmian copies 
are known to differ. Now. here is quite an array of learned names substantially 
sustaining the readings of the teztus rcceptus. The readings of that copy are also 
sustained by a limited number of inferior manuscripts. Who, then, shall say that 
any definite 'number of names shall suffice to set their authority aside? Certainly, 
absolute unanimity caanot be claimed in. favor of even a single reading differing 
from the received text. (2.) Because, in carrying out this plan consistently it would 
be impossible to make any emendation whatever ; for there is scarcely a reading 
of the received text that is not supported by one or more learned names. * * * 
If, then, any important use is to be made of the labors of scholars in the depart- 
ment of textual criticism, for the last two hundred years, it seems necessary to 
adopt some more liberal rule than this. (3.) By adopting those emendations only 
which are recommended by scholars enjoying superior facilities for arriving at^a 
just conclusion. This is, no doubt, the foundation on which the preceding rule is 
based. * * * I have, therefore, been governed by the following rules, in 
determining the state of the text. 1. I have not ventured to entertain a doubt as 


to the genuineness of a reading, which may have been impugned by only a single 
critic ; neither would I, in any case, recommend the adoption of a mere conjectural 
emendation, however plausible. 2. When a majority of the leading editors, inclu- 
ding the more recent ones, have decided in favor of a reading, I recommend its adop- 
tion, unless 1 can discover some pretty strong internal evidence against it. 3. 
When a respectable number of the more recent editors, especially of those who are known 
to favor the Alexandrine Recension, agree in adopting a reading, I have endeav- 
ored to examine the evidence, both external and internal, for and against it, and 
have decided accordingly." 

Thus Messrs. Lillie and Morton have undertaken to revise the Greek 
text, but not agreeing in their principles of recension, they of course 
arrive at different results ; each one making a text, which the other 
would not use ; and both together producing parts of a revised version, 
which no amount of skill or scholarship can possibly harmonize. They 
agree that there are, in the received text, " known errors," which they 
are required to correct. They agree also that the recognition of such 
" known errors " is attended with " no small difficulty." For Dr. Lillie 
acknowledges that the most simple and satisfactory test that he could 
think of, " would no more than any other secure a perfect text, or even 
all the preferable readings." ; And Mr. Morton, considering that " the 
reviser is left to judge from the best light he can obtain," what are 
" known errors," confesses that " this discretionary power has occasioned 
no small difficulty in the prosecution of this work ; " and that how a 
reviser shall " make up his mind, as to a proposed reading," is " a diffi- 
cult question." But as to the test of " known errors," these revisers do 
not agree. Mr. Morton follows the judgment " of a respectable number of 
the more recent editors ; " " adopting those emendations only which are 
recommended by scholars enjoying superior facilities for arriving at. a 
just conclusion." Dr. Lillie takes the general consent of the critical editors 
for the last hundred years. And at the last meeting of the Bible Union, 
the test proposed by Dr. Lillie was sanctioned and established as the 
rule of that Institution. - 

Now the present position of the Bible Union, and its revisers, in rela- 
tion to the Greek text, if persisted in, must destroy all ground of confi- 
dence in the revision work of that Institution. For, to say nothing of 
the original design, as having been abandoned, the principle upon which 
the new Greek text is to be formed, is radically icrong and egregiously 
defective. If it were right, why was it never discovered and adopted 
before ? Why did not Sholz, or Lachraan, or Tichendorf, or Tregelles, 
take " the general consent of the critical editors for the last hundred 
years," as " the test of known errors ?" For the obvious reason, admit- 
ted by Dr. Lillie, that such a test " would no more than any other 
secure a perfect text, or even all the preferable readings." Every com- 
petent scholar knows that the general consent of any given number of 
critical editors, whose principles of recension so widely differ, is no cer- 
tain criterion of the genuineness or spuriousness of any questionable 
reading. And who does not see that a test for the detection of "known 
errors" in the received Greek text, which excludes from all considera- 
tion the learning bestowed upon that text in the seventeenth century 
by such men as Walton Castell, Clarke, Thorndike, Pococke and 


Greaves men -who rose to the zenith of the world's literature, and 
culminated in the noonday effulgence of classic and oriental lore a test 
which blots into oblivion that monument of the immortal Millj ^whieh/' 
gays Butler, ".formed a new era in biblical criticism ;" together, with the 
justly celebrated work of the pious Bengel, and all the critical labors 
of the world-renowned scholar of Amsterdam, whose collation Mlchaeh's, 
though the avowed enemy of Wetstein, pronounces "of all editions^of 
the Greek Testament, the most important and the most necessary to 
those who are engaged in sacred criticism ;" and which the celebrated 
translator of Michaelis denominates the- "invaluable book "-who does 
not know that such a test, as a principle of recension, can never com- 
mand the confidence or respect of illiterate men of sense, much less of 
critical scholars ? and that the version which rests upon such a recen- 
sion must be discarded as incongruous patch-work ? : 

. ' ~ T '-." ' 

.In this I pass no judgment upon the " received text." I only say that 
for reasons which seemed sufficient at the time, the text as critically 
edited and published by Bagster and Sons in 1851, was originally select- 
ed to be used by revisers of the Bible Union, without alteration by 
them, as the standard of a revised version ;' that, if that text came to 
be regarded, as the Revision Association pronounces it, adulterated 
with "the grossest corruption," and consequently unfit to be used, with- 
out alteration, the only safe course was to substitute some other edition ; 
such as Sholz's, Lachmann's^ or Tichendorf's, or .else to employ some com- 
petent scholar -or scholars to make a new, independent collation from 
original sources ; and finally, that, by adopting such an erroneous and 
defective test for the admission and rejection of various readings, and 
assigning this most difficult and dangerous work of biblical incorporation 
and evisceration to men unskilled, and, to a great extent, unread; in the 
archeology of sacred literature, the American Bible Union has really 
unsettled the only possible foundation of a revised version of ; the Holy 
Scriptures, in the English or any other language. For no version can 
stand upon a text which has been mutilated and amended by the revis-- > 
ers of the Bible Union, on the hitherto unheard-of ; principle of recension- 
recently adopted by that Institution. 

The scholarship employed by the, Bilk Ifnion has leen unconscionably 
exaggerated. : ^ 

As to the number of revisers employed by the Union, Dr. Maclay says 
he had understood from the Secretary, that " about forty were actually f 
engaged in translating the New Testament.": The officers, in their reply* 
testify that, ; : "^ 

"The Secretary's statement was, that more than twenty responsible persons had 
been directly engaged by the American Bible Union, jn the revision of the ^Eng- 
lish Scriptures, and that, with those whom they engaged on our suggestion, the 
number was between thirty and forty. Statements to this import have beefl fre- 
quently made by him, both in print and in letters," " Stronger announcements 
than these have never been made by the Secretary, or any other officer of the 
Union, BO far as known to us, and the facts fully warrant these." . ,..;.. 


And the Committee of Investigation* declare that, 

"Upon a careful examination, the Committee cannot find that the statement was 
ever made officially, that ' about forty ' scholars were actually engaged in the work 
of revising the New Testament." 

As this is one of the points which the Committee of Investigation 
distinguish as having been subjected to a " careful examination," the 
erroneous result at which they arrived in this case, will show how little 
reliance can be safely placed upon the sum total of their findings. 

In the Bible Union Reporter for January, 1854, is an official paper, 
purporting to be an Address of the Board, signed by the President and 
Secretary of the American Bible Union, in which it is said with exclusive 
reference, to "the revision of ike English Scriptures," that, 

" The number of scholars actually engaged in the service of the Union does not 
vary far from forty." " In none of the above numbers do we embrace those schol- 
ars (of whom there are many), that render collateral aid." 

In the Annual Report of the New York Bible Union, for 1854, as fur- 
nished in the Corresponding Secretary's oivn hand-writing, over his official 
signature, and published in the New York Chronicle, it is said with ref- 
erence to the Bible Union : 

" The number of revisers and translators employed is nearly fifty, holding their 
ecclesiastical connections in at least eight different denominations." 

In an official document of the Bible Revision Association, of which 
Dr. Lynd was President at the time of its publication, some time pre- 
vious to his writing the Report for the Committee of Investigation, it is 
said of the Bible Union : 

" It has called to the work of revising the Holy Scrip lures/or*/ of the best Hebrew 
and Greek scholars that could be found in Europe and America. If there are any better 
scholars than those employed by the Bible Union, no amount of honest and assid- 
uous effort on the part of that Association has enabled it to hear of them. Ten 
different sects have contributed the forty scholars to the great work of revising the 
Holy Scriptures. Not one of these forty was engaged on account of his special sec- 
tarianism, but solely on account of his well-ascertained position in acquirements 
and ability, and for fidelity to the Holy Spirit in faithfully transferring the ideas 
uttered by inspiration in Hebrew and Greek, from those languages into the Eng- 
lish tongue." " In addition to the high scholarship we have named as engaged in 
promoting the objects of the Bible Union, there are over three hundred critics, in 
England and America, engaged by the Union, for the purpose of guaranteeing the 
fidelity of the translators." " Each book revised has not only to pass the inspec- 
tion of all the scholars engaged on the other books, but has to be examined by 
each of the critics, before it goes to press." 

The above statements were all " made officially," and published in 
documents, of which no Committee of Investigation, qualified for the 

* Messrs. S. "W. Lynd, D. P. Henderson, W. B.Maxson, R. Powell, E. James, T.K, 
Potter, A. Pierce, A. Parker, T.Swaim, and J.Taylor. 


task assigned to them, and accepted by them, and honorably acquitted 
of their responsibility by a faithful discharge of their duties, could be 
by any means ignorant. And how men, having any proper regard for 
truth, could, in the face of these documents, profess to have made " a 
careful examination," and upon that give the public to understand that 
the statement .that, " about forty scholars were actually engaged in the 
work of revising the New Testament," was never " made officially," is 
more than I can understand. It is what I did not expect from such men 
as Lynd, Pierce, Powell, James and Swaim, however interested and ex 
parte the Committee might be, on which they were acting. 

Again, the Committee of Investigation cite the following statement, 
made by Mr. Wyckoff in 1854 : 

""Written contracts have been made with more than twenty scholars, and many 
of these, in compliance with the stipulations, have made engagements with others 
to work with them, so that the number of scholars actually engaged ia the service 
of the Union does not vary far from forty." 

Then the Committee further aver that, 

" This statement corresponds with the fact of appointments." 

Let it be observed, that in this statement Mr. "Wyckoff alleges nothing 
more nor less than that " the number of scholars actually engaged in the 
service of the Union [as independent revisers] does not vary far from 
forty ;" for he immediately adds, that, " In none of the above numbers 
do we embrace those scholars (of whom there are many), that render 
collateral aid." Whether " this statement corresponds with the fact of 
appointments," as it is authoritatively asserted by the Committee of In- 
vestigation, the public will be most accurately informed by a certified 
list of those appointments. 

For reasons which seemed good to the original managers of the Bible 
Union, it was understood, that during the progress of the work of revis- 
ion, the names of all the revisers without distinction, should be kept 
secret. But recently this understanding has been violated. The names 
of Forsyth, Boys, Lillie, Conant, Morton, and Schaff, have been paraded 
upon the pages of official documents, as examples of all the revisers em- 
ployed by the Union. After all this, it is right for me to give the entire 
list, and it is right that the public should have it, that they may know 
for themselves just how many are engaged in the work ; whether they 
are all equal to the samples shown ; whether the Bible Union is fairly 
entitled to the credit of employing " forty of the best Hebrew and Greek 
scholars that could be found in Europe and America," with " over three 
hundred critics " in addition. To avoid all disputes and doubts as to 
the correctness of this list, I shall give it in the exact language of an 
officer of the Bible Union, who made it out complete for Dr. Maclay, 
about the 1st of March, 1856, as follows : 





By C. A. Buckbee, Assistant Treasurer. 

* REV, WM. NORTON, October 1st, 1851. To superintend the revision In England. 
Under his superintendence the New Testament has been revised, the MSS. trans- 
mitted, and is now at the Rooms ; and all English revisers paid in full 54,546 96. 

(t) REV. WM. NORTON, and REV. WM. H. MARCH D.D., President Stepney Col- 
lege, England, January 7th, 1852, Matthew and Mark, conjointly. Nothing done 
under this arrangement. 

1. REV. WM. PEECHEY,A.M, Mch. 3d. Matthew, Mark, Philippians. James, 1st &2d 
Peter, 1st, 2d, & 3rd John, for $375, and expenses. Feb'y- 2d, 1853, time extend- 
ed, and compensation, increased, $181,50. All done, in MSS. at the Rooms. Paid 
in full, by W. Norton. 

2. REV. Jos. ANGUS, M.A., M.R.A.S., President Stepney College, England, 1852. 
Luke, Romans, John. Philemon, Jude, for $375 (and expenses, April 7, ; 52), Feb. 
2d, 1853, $181,50 added, and time extended. All done. MSS. at the Rooms. 
Paid in full, by Wm. Norton. 

3. REV. T. J. GRAY. D.D., Ph. D., Classical Instructor, Stepney Coll., March 3, '52. 
Acts, 1st & 2d Thessalonians, Galatians, 1st & 2d Timothy, Hebrews, for $375, 
and expenses, April 7, 1853. Feb. 2d, $181,50 added, and time extended. All 
done. MSS. at Rooms. Paid for by Wm. Norton. 

4. REV. T. BOYS, REV. A. S. THELWAUL, May 4th, 1853, Mark for 27.10 each. 
April 4th, 1855, John done for 36.10. MSS. at the Rooms, Luke agreed for 
on the same terms, with ThelwalL 

5. REV. FRANCIS CLOWES, M.A., late Classical Instructor in Bradford College, 
March 3d, 1852, 1st & 2d Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, Titus, Revelations, 
for $375, and expenses, April 7, 1853. Feb. 2d, $181,50 added, and time extend- 
ed. All done, and paid for, by Wm. Norton. MSS. at Rooms. 

(f) PROP. F. W. GOTCH, England, April 7th, 1852 ; to assist the English revisers 
in any desirable way consistent with the terms of agreement with them, at an ex- 
pense not to exceed 75. Nothing done. 

() REV. MR. PATTERSON, D.D., Glasgow, per Dr. Maclay, Dec. 6, 1854 ; critical 
suggestions on the New Testament, for $101,84. 

(t) REV. J. L. DAGO, D.D., President Mercer University, Ga., Feb. 2d, Hebrews. 
The work was commenced, but discontinued for want of health. No charge. 

(t) PROF. J. M. CRAWFORD, Penfield.'Ga., Feb. 2tL Dr. Dagg requested to obtain 
the assistance of Prof. C. Nothing done. 

6. REV. PROF. N. N. WHITING, Feb. 2d, 1-852, Ephesians. Done hurriedly. MSS. 
at the Rooms. $20. April 6th, 1854. To verify authorities cited by revisers, 
correct errors, give his own views on proposed changes, read proofs, and aid the 
revisers in every needed way, for $2 per day, four days per week, $711.98. Feb. 7, 
1855, Ephesians, as more thoroughly done by Prof. Whiting, is ordered to be put 
to press, under direction of the officers. It is stereotyped in 8vo plates. Feb. 
7, 1855, Hebrewa All MSS. revisions of Hebrews committed to Prof. Whiting 
to prepare for the press. 

TOCK, D.D., President, Feb. 7th, 1852. Messrs. Lillie requested to associate with 
them Dr. McClintock in revising 1st, 2d, & 3d John and Revelation. Nothing 
done under this arrangement. 

* * Agent f Appointed as revisers or assistants, and declined. Examiner. 
Comparer. Hebrew editor. 


(f) REV. JOHN LTLLIE,D.D., RET. JAMES LTLLIE, M.D., D.D., March 3d, 1st & 2d 
Timothy, James, Titus, 1st & 2d Peter, Philemon, 1st, 2d, & 3d John, Hebrews, 
Jude, Revelation, for $1000 each. Nothing done conjointly by Messrs. Lillie. 
But each worked separately, as follows : 

7. REV. JAMES LILLIE, M.D., D.D., March 3d, 1st & 2d Timothy, Titus, Phile- 
mon, Hebrews, James, 1st Peter. June 1st, 1853, $1000 for work done to May 
1st, 1853, and $200 for May and June, 1853. July 6th, $100 per month for 
his exclusive labors on the parts assigned. June 7th, 1854, $250 allowed for 
half the time during five months spent by him in completing his part of the 
work ; $1,650. His work is in MSS. at the Rooms. 

8. REV. JOHN LILLIE, D.D., New York, March 3d, 1852, 2d Peter, Jude, 1st, 2d 
& 3d John, and Revelation, for $1000 the job. Sept. 29th, 1st & 2d Thessa- 
lonians, transferred from Prof. Duncan. June 2d, 1852, 2d Peter and Jude 
done and ready for examination by other revisers. June 20, 1852, 150 copies of 
2d Peter and Jude to be printed with the Greek text, old version and revision, 
with authorities on the same page. July 30, 1st, 2d, & 3d John to be printed 
with 2d Peter and Jude. Sept. 29, 1852, one copy of Lillie's revision to be fur- 
nished to each reviser of the Board. 1st & 2d Thessalonians transferred from 
Prof Duncan, of New Orleans. Nov. 1st, 1852, engaged for $1,600 per annum 
to May 1st, 1853, from the time he gave up his church for the Union. To give 
any assistance needed in examining revisions, reading proofs, &c. Feb. 2d, 1853, 
engaged from May 1st, 1853, to May 1st, 1854, for a salary of $1,800. March 2, 
1853, a sufficient number of John Lillie's revision ordered printed, 1st, For schol- 
ars to examine and criticise. 2d, For friends, for a reasonable price. 3d, To be 
used in promoting the interest of the Union. March 1st, 1854, re-engaged to May 
1st, 1855, for a salary of $2000 from May 1st. June 7, allowed to remit his la- 
bors three months, to visit England. June 20th, '55, 1st Peter ; the MSS. of 
James Lillie referred to John Lillie : requested to revise the book. 

9. Faculty of Madison University, Hamilton, N.Y. REV. GEO. "VV. EATON, D.D., 
REV. PROF. E. S. GALLUP, A.M., REV. S. W. TAYLOB, LL.D., President. May 5th, 
1852. Philippians and Colossians. Work in hands. No information respecting its 
present condition. 

10. Faculty of Shurtliff College, Upper Alton, 111. Prof. E. ADKINS, May 5th, '52, 
Romans. June 20th, 1855 ; If Prof. Adkins can give his entire time, he shall 
receive not less than from his Professorship. Also, if he can arrange to complete 
Romans at the Rooms, the Board agree to pay the additional expense to which he 
shall thereby be subjected. Dec. 15th, Prof. A. commenced work at the Bible 
Rooms. Feb. 6th, 1856, $200 ordered for work previous to Dec. 15th, 1855. Sala- 
ry fixed at $1,200 per annum. Now at the Rooms. . 

11. Faculty of the University of the State of Missouri, Rev. JAMES SHANNON, LL.D., 
President. Feb. 7th, 1852, Luke. Nothing definitely known. It is believed that 
nothing is done. 

12. Faculty of Bethany College, Virginia. Eld. ALEX. CAMPBELL, President ; Prof. 
U. K. Pendleton, Prof. Ross. Feb. 7th, 1852, Acts. March 7th, 1855 ; completed 
in part. Ordered to be published with John, under the direction and approval of 
the Version Committee, when ready for printing. April 4th, compensation to A. 
Campbell, $1000. Sept. 5th, ordered to be published immediately, Drs. Baker and 
Shepard to read proofs, &c. 

13. Faculty of the Western Theological Inst., Covington, Ky. Rev. S. W. LTND, 
D.D., President. Rev. Prof. Asa Drury. May 5th, 1852, Galatians. The work 
being completed, was requested from Dr. Lynd. The MSS. is at the Rooms. Not 
to be published without his consent. 

(t) Faculty of Louisiana University, at New Orleans. Prof. W. C. DCNCAN, A.M. 
May 5th, 1852, 1st & 2d Thessalonians. Nothing. Sept. 29th, 1st & 2d Corinth- 
ians. The work was commenced. Prof. D.'s health being feeble, the work is sus- 
pended, at least, if not given up entirely. 

() Rev. HosEA HOWARD, returned Missionary from Burmah. May 5th, 1852. 
To make a critical comparison between Judson's Burman version and the common 
English version, note the differences, and translate literally the Burman words and 
phrases, where the meaning varies from that of the common English version in the 
Wew Testament. June 20th, 1855, $100 for the job, as agreed for by Committee 


on Versions. Confirmed by the Board. The work is done ; i. e., the New Testa- 
ment entire, and paid for in full. 

14. Faculty of De Ruyter Institute. Rev. J.W. MORTON. July 7th, 1852, Matthew. 
Terms to be arranged in personal conversation. Nothing done. Sept. 29th, Luke 
for $500 the job. Nothing done on Luke. But April 6th, 1854, Resolved, to add 
$250 to the original contract with Prof. M., when he shall have delivered his MSS. 
revision of John to the Version Committee satisfactorily done. July 5th, revision 
of John by Prof. M. to be published. July 26th, Prof. Morton continued as a revi- 
ser at $1000 per annum. 1st & 2d Corinthians assigned to him. John is stereo- 
typed, and Prof. M. is on Corinthians at the Rooms. 

(t) RKV. 0. B. JUDD, LL.D., New York. Rev. D. R. CAMPBELL, LL.D., Sept. 
29th, 1852. Matthew and Mark conjointly. Nothing done by cither under this 
appointment. Dr. Campbell declined for want of time. 

15. REV. 0. B. JUDD, LL.D., Nov. 3d, 1852, Matthew, S1000 tlie job. May, 
1854, the Committee on Versions authorized to arrange with 0. B. Judd for $1,- 
500 per annum (not more), to devote his time exclusively to the business of revis- 
ion and the passing of parts through the press as they shall severally be pre- 
pared. July 26th, 1854, Resolved, to authorize the publication of Matthew as soon 
as it is prepared for the press. Two chapters published. First three chapters 

16. Rev. PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D., President of Mcrcersburg University, Pa. Feb. 2, 
1853. Romans, for $400. Done. MSS. at the Rooms. Paid. 

(t) Rev. A. C. KENDRICK, D.D., Prof, of Greek in Rochester University, N. Y. 
Nov. 2, 1853, Romans for $800. Nothing done. Dec. 7th, declined. 

17. EDWARD MATCRIN, ESQ., Nov. 2d, 1853. Dec. 7th, Mark, for $1,000 per ann. 
Matthew ; by mutual consent, Mr. Maturin spent six months on Matthew, with the 
understanding that the reviser of Matthew should give similar aid on Mark. He 
was paid while laboring on Matthew, $500. Mark "has been revised once. The 
notes are now being arranged for the English reader. Completed to 9th chapter. 
Paid on Mark, $1,111,15. 

18. Rev. WM. P. STRICKLAND, D.D., Cincinnati. O., Author of History of Amer- 
ican Bible Society. Nov. 1st, 1854, Colossians. Feb. 7th. 1855, done, and ordered 
to be paid $200. Sept. 5th, requested to complete Colossians at the Rooms, for 
$1,500 per annum and travelling expenses to and from New York. Commenced 
services under contract. Now at the Rooms. 

19. Rev. S. E. SHEPARD, New York. Nov. 1st. 1854, Philippians, for $3 per day. 
Nov. 7th, 1855, $1,400 per annum from Nov. 1st. 1855. To superintend the pub- 
lication of Acts in connection with Dr. Baker. Dr. Shepard is at the Rooms. 

20. Rev. JOHN FORSYTH, D.D., President of the Newbiirgh Theolog. Inst., N. Y. 
May 7th, 1855, Ephesians, $300 for the job. Done. JISS. at the Rooms. 

21. Rev. JOSEPH MUEJCSCHER, D.D., Jubilee College. Sept. 26th, 1855, Luke, 
for $1,400 per annum. Now at the Rooms. Commenced Jan. 1st, 1856. 

22. Rev. T. J. CONANT, D.D., Prof, of Heb., &c., at Rochester University. July 
18th, 1853. To translate Old Testament, accompanied with explanatory notes ; 
reserving two hours per day. To be printed with full philological and explanatory 
notes, for examination by other scholars. Their criticisms to be carefully examin- 
ed before preparing final copy. Salary $2,000 per annum. If the two hours are 
relinquished, by consent of the Board, the salary thus relinquished shall be added 
to Dr. C. by the Union. After Psalms, the Prophets, and Job, are critically com- 
pleted, if the Board desire it, a more hasty revision of the rest of the Old Testa- 
ment will be given, before proceeding to a more thorough correction of the prin- 
cipal errors of the common version. To publish with or without notes, according 
to demand. The Board agrees to give widest possible circulation to each part, and 
to pay two per cent, for the revision with notes. Compact can be annulled by 
one year's previous notice. In any case, the work to be completed in twelve years, 
i. e., by July, 1865. $1.300 advanced. 

() February 1st, 1854, Dr. Conant authorized to employ the distinguished 
Hebraist of Germany, Prof. RODIGER, of whom he writes, to prepare for the Am. 
Bible Union a corrected text of Job, on as reasonable terms as possible. June 7. 
A correct text of Psalms authorized, by Dr. Rodiger, through Prof. Conant, for 
$400. Not over. First issue of Job to contain Hebrew, common version and re- 


vision, with notes, arranged as Dr. Conant may prefer. The revised version to be 
arranged in paragraphs and notes for the English reader. Of the amount ad- 
vanced to Dr. Conant, there remains still to be paid ^33.33 per month), $167,59. 

The above was taken from the records of the Board of the Bible 
Union, by the acting Secretary, Rev. C. A. Buckbee, for the President, 
Eev. A. Maclay, D.D., about the first of March, 1856, as a complete list 
of the revisers of the Bible Union, together with those employed to 
render " collateral aid." Except the numeral figures, and the indices, 
which I have placed in the margin to facilitate examinations, the list is 
given exactly as I have it, in the handwriting of the Secretary. In 
some cases, the appointment is made formally to embrace the Faculty of 
a University or College. But in no such case, so far as I know, has 
there been more than one actually at work, independently or conjointly, 
in the same Institution, as revisers of the Bible Union. And Mr. Wyc- 
koff, in giving the number of those " actually engaged in the service of 
the Union," as revisers, which he says " does not vary far from forty," 
states distinctly, that, in this number he " does not embrace those (of 
whom there are many), that furnish collateral aid" 

Some of the official statements which have been made concerning the 
number of scholars employed by the Bible Union to revise the transla- 
tion of the Scriptures, have already been given. One was officially made 
and published by the Revision Association, of which Dr. Lynd is Pres- 
ident, declaring that the Bible Union has employed in this work, "forty 
of Ike. lest Hebrew and Greek scholars tliat could be found in Europe and 
America, with " over three hundred critics in England and America," to 
guarantee the fidelity of the translators, " each book revised having not 
only to pass the inspection of the scholars engaged on the other books, 
but to be examined by each of the [over 300] critics, before it goes to 

A complete list of the revisers and their collateral aids, as certified 
by the Secretary from the Records of the Board, has also been given. 
To these I will now add the following imposing declaration of Messrs. 
Lynd, Pierce, Powell, Swaim, and others, members of the Committee 
of Investigation, who say : 

" In this minute and. protracted investigation, we find that there is no discrepancy what- 
ever between the official statements concerning the number of revisers, and the 

Nothing remains, but a simple comparison of this alleged finding of 
the Committee, with the foregoing "official statements," and certified 
"facts," to impress every impartial, candid reader, with a painful sense 
of human depravity, and to satisfy him that no reliance whatever can 
be safely placed upon the most solemn declarations of that Committee, 
in the matter of its investigation into the affairs of the Bible Union. 
It gives me no pleasure to arrive at this conclusion ; but when such grave 
misstatements are made by men of reputation, under circumstances so 
well calculated to mislead a confiding public, the duty of exposing such 
misstatements in the light of truth, is rendered only the more imperative 
by the imposing prestige of their personal influence and official station. 


As to the competency of the men employed by the Bible Union, as 
revisers, Dr. Maclay says : " Some of them unquestionably lacked the 
essential qualifications of a translator." But the Committee of Investi- 
gation " unanimously agreed that the charge of iucompetency was not 
sustained." And the Revision Association, of which Dr. Lynd, the 
chairman of the Committee of Investigation, is President, ranks them 
all alike, as " the lest Hebrew and Greek scholars that could le found in 
Europe, and America." Having given the entire list of these revisers, 
I would leave the public to judge of their qualifications, without any fur- 
ther evidence on the subject, had I not been publicly charged, by the 
officers of the Bible Union, with unreasonable opposition to the re- 
appointment of Eld. S. E. Shepard. Under these circumstances, it be- 
comes my duty to add some more particular testimony on this point. 

I have no personal controversy with Mr. Shepard. In my letter to 
the New York Times, 1 stated briefly the ground of my opposition to his 
reappointment, as a reviser, upon which he publishes a pamphlet of 
fifteen pages, styling himself, "Dr. Shepard," and complaining of me for 
calling him " Elder," instead of " Doctor," thus : 

" He knew that I was not an ' Elder,' and that I disclaimed the title ; " "as he 
wished to disparage my scholarship, and the term ' Elder ' has no connection with 
scholarship, he chose that title in preference to that by which I am designated by 
my acquaintances generally." 

I did know that Mr. Shepard was^commonly called "Doctor" on ac- 
count of his profession and practice^)!, hojaoaopathy ; and, although I 
had understood that no such "degree was eveFconferred upon him by 
any legitimate authority, I should probably have called him " Dr. Shep- 
ard," had I been speaking of him in any other connection. But I 
thought the application of that title to him, as a reviser, would convey 
the erroneous impression, that he was either a Doctor of Divinity or a 
Doctor of Laws, which I wished to avoid, as unjust to him, and to every 
body else. I did not know that he " was not an 'Elder,' " or that he 
"disclaimed the title." I am sure it is the title commonly applied to 
ministers of the Campbellite connection ; and in the Bible Union Re- 
porter, Quarterly, published February, 1856, some months before my 
letter appeared, and in the same periodical for February, 1851, months 
after his complaints, his name is printed in the official catalogue of Life 
Directors of the Bible Union, " Eld. S. E. Shepard." So that his com- 
plaint against me on this point, is not only frivolous, but groundless. I 
will only add, in relation to the contents of Mr. Shepard's pamphlet, that 
whatever interested persons may affirm to the contrary, I never expressed 
nor entertained an opinion that he was qualified to translate indepen- 
dently any portion of the Holy Scriptures ; nor did I ever recommend 
his employment, as a reviser of the Bible Union. He was first set to 
work on Philippians, by the Secretary, without any authority from the 
Board or the Committee on Versions ; and he was afterwards appointed, 
and re-appointed, through the influence of the same officer ; with a view, 
as I have good reason to believe, of obtaining more money from the 
people of his ecclsiastical connection. But if I had favored his original 


employment, I could not have voted for his re-appointment ; for then I 
was more than ever before convinced of his incompeteucy ; and the 
grounds of that conviction. I will now state. 

For more than a year, Mr. Shepard had been conducting a periodical, 
called " The Reviser," edited in the Rooms of the Bible TJnion, and is- 
sued as if under the wing of that Institution. This alone contained 
evidence enough to satisfy me of his incompetency to translate the Scrip- 
tures. And I think a few specimen extracts from that work will satisfy 
every candid reader of the same thing. The following shows his ability 
as a writer : 

" What language the Infinite employed -when he commanded Nonentity to bring 
forth, and a world was born when the infant world slept in the darkness of an- 
cient Night, and nought was heard by seraphs' ears but the breath of the Eternal, 
as it passed over the slumbering mass, separated land from water, and invested 
both with seeds of all inferior things what speech he used, when, by the power of 
his almighty fiat, he caused eternal darkness itself to scintillate, until blending 
sparks of virgin light produced the early twilight of the first-born day or what 
were the signs of thought by which he vocalized the grand purpose of man's cre- 
ation to his co-operatives, we know not." p. 5. 

" The angel herald neared the summit of the mountain to proclaim the approach- 
ing Divinity, until in the midst of the dense electric cloud, now dark as the very 
blackness of darkness itself, now blazing to the heavens, he sounded the fortissimo 
for the concert of the elements." p. 45. 

These are fair specimens of Mr. Shepard's most elaborate style of 
thought and expression ; and they show to any person of correct taste, 
that, however many other qualifications he might have, his customary 
use or abuse of the English language would disqualify him to make a 
chaste translation of the Sacred Writings. He whose most successful 
attempts at eloquence carry him a step beyond the sublime, is not com- 
petent to clothe anew the thoughts of inspired penmen. 

The following are specimens of the outlandish words and phrases with 
which Mr. Shepard's writings abound : 

" The use of ' unto,' in such instances, instead of ' to,' is to me objectional." 
" 'Ye,' instead of ' you,' is also objectional." p. 42. "In the succeedent context." 
p. 45. 

" Being determined on resurrecting these sages." p. 55. " these obliviated 
translators." " these paragonic scholars." p. 56. 

" There was not in the use of this verb any distinction of masculinity or feminin- 
ity." p. 218. " demonical " " d&nonahties." p. 301. With many more words 
and phrases equally barbarous. 

" I have no special reason to complain of Mr. Judd's treatment of me, which 
might not be plead by others." Rev. Ex., p. 12. 

Such a free use of words, not authorized by standard writers, betrays 
either an ignorance or an independence of the laws of language, which, 
in my judgment, disqualifies the person so using them, to translate the 
word of God. The following are some of Mr. Shepard's most learned 
criticisms : 

He has twice rendered tfirfrsusTs, a verb in the present tense, John 3; 
12, by " did believe," pp. 300, 303. 


Again, he says : "en (sv) governing plurals, is often, if w>t always, 
better rendered ' among.' " p. 304. 

According to this rule, Rom. 2:15 would be " better rejulcred " thus : 
"Which show the work of the law written among their hearts ; " and 
numerous other improvements like this would be made in the common 

Again, he says : " The kingdom of heaven is compared to a little 
leaven which a woman hid in a sala (c^-a) bushel of meal ; " p. 258 ; 
which displays the same knowledge of Greek, as a foreigner would ex- 
hibit of English by telling us something about a gccsc. 

No one who is capable of making such unscholarlike mistakes as these 
is competent to handle the inspired text for any purpose whatever. 

The following extracts furnish an index to some of Mr. Shepard's pe- 
culiar views of the Christian church, and the kingdom of Christ : 

" Democracy in religion is treason against God. It is the sepulchre of rottenness 
from which have arisen all the poisonous exhalations which have contributed to 
the universal epidemic which now prevails through all Christendom." "A demo- 
cratic church is an anti-Christian association." " The Scotch Baptists have given us a 
fine demonstration of a democratic religion. They have persisted in their course 
for many years, with all the firmness characteristic of their everlasting ' highlands,' 
without approximating the apostolic order. But what have they done for the con- 
version of the world nay, for the conversion of their own nation ! They have 
organized themselves and met they have met and wrangled ; and wrangled and 
divided ; and subdivided, till they have little or no influence where they meet. 
They hold that a church can organize itself, ordain its own officers, and govern 
itself." " The notion of a democratic religion and the independence of churches, has 
led to electioneering, strifes, voting, disorganizing and scandal to the Christian 
cause. Members of the same church have separated into two distinct and hostile 
churches. Members have been expelled from one church, and received into ano- 
ther ' of the same faith,' without making any satisfaction for their offences. If 
the laws of Christ relative to the discipline of members of churches, had been re- 
garded, such instances of folly, and shame could never have occurred. According 
to the laws of his kingdom the apostles were subordinate to him the evangelists 
to the apostles the elders and ministers to the evangelists and the congregations 
to the elders and ministers. If the members could not agree, they could refer 
their matter to their elders and ministers ; if they did them injustice, they could 
accuse them, on two or three witnesses, before the evangelists ; and if the accusa- 
tion was sustained, the evangelists should rebuke them before all, that others might 
fear." pp. 263, 264. "There is not a democrat among all the heavenly messen- 
gers ; there was not a democrat in the kingdom of heaven." p. 262. 

The following, published in the New York Times, October 18th, 
1856, touching the "aristocracy," and other castes of the kingdom 
of heaven, bears on the same point : 

"Religious Notice. Dr. S. E. SHEPARD will commence a series of Four Dis- 
courses TO-MORROW (Sunday) MORXTXG, in the Disciples Meeting House, in 17th- 
st., near 6th-av., commencing at 10 o'clock, on the following subjects, viz. : 

1. THE KINGDOM OP HEAVEX Viewed Prophetically and Historically. 2. THE 

No man who, with views so peculiar to himself, cherishes such violent 


prejudices against any sect of orthodox Christians, as Mr. Shepard here 
lets loose against the Scotch Baptists ; and who, while occupying a 
room in the meeting-house of an independent Baptist church, could, in 
that very room, write so contemptuously against " the independence of 
churches ; " a doctrine most devoutly believed and preached by the pas- 
tor of the same church, can be imbued with that beautiful charity of the 
Bible, and that primitive brotherly love, which are so essential to a 
faithful translator of the Holy Oracles. 

The following extracts show with what unblushing temerity Mr. Shep- 
ard stigmatizes, as " false," the most venerable tenets of the Christian 
faith, and lays down as indubitably true the most startling dogmas of 
modern innovation : 

"That article in the Catholic Church, which affirms that Jesus was 'begotten of 
the Holy Ghost,' is as/aZse as it is true that he is ' the only -begotten of the 
Father.' " p. 90. " If the Holy Spirit had generated Jesus he could not be call- 
ed a son of God, but must be called a son of the Holy Syirit. But as we have 
elsewhere shown, a holy spirit means the power of God; and therefore he was styled 
the son of God." p. 282. '' Jesus was a prophet ' mighty iu deed and word,' and 
he wrought in the apostolic ministry, through mighty signs and wonders, by the 
power of the spirit of God." p. 43. 

He who thus rashly denies that Jesus was begotten of the Holy 
Spirit, and by implication asserts that the stupendous miracles which 
he wrought, were not the immediate effect of his own power, cannot, 
in my judgment, be safely trusted with the translation of God's word. 
Again, speaking of the influence of the Holy Spirit on the human heart, 
he says : 

" I have noticed from the early history of the controversy on the question of 
direct, special and independent influence of the Spirit on the hearts of men, that 
those persons who contend most strenuously for such an influence, are the most 
petulant, quarrelsome, slanderous, and bigoted professors in the circle of my ac- 
quaintance." p. 289. 

Such an aspersion upon the " direct, special and independent influence 
of the Spirit on the hearts of men," seems to me but little, if anything, 
short of downright blasphemy ; and indicates a radical unfitness for the 
work of biblical translation. 

But finally, I submit that the following so-called revisions, made by 
Mr. Shepard, demonstrate, beyond all reasonable question, his utter in- 
competency to translate the Divine Word : 

Common Version. Mr. Shepard's Revision. 

Add to your faith virtue ; andtovir- Supplying in his faith fortitude ; in 

tue knowledge ; and to knowledge tern- fortitude knowledge ; in knowledge 

perance ; and to temperance patience ; self-control ; in self-control patience ; 

and to pat ience godliness ; and to god- in patience piety; in pioty brotherly 

liness brotherly kindness ; and to bro- kindness ; in brotherly kind/less love, 

therly kindness charity. 2 Pet. 1 : 5-7. p. 34. 

I think it meet, as long as I am in this I think it right so long as I am in this 

tabernacle, to stir you up by putting tabernacle, to thoroughly excite you in 

yon in remembrance. 2 Pet. 1 : 13. remembrance. p. 41. 


In whom ye also are builded together 
for an habitation of God through the 
Spirit. Eph. 2 : 22. 

But the blasphemy against the Holy 
Ghost shall not be forgiven unto 3en. 
Matt. 12 : 31. 

The spirit indeed is willing, but the 
flesh is weak. Matt. 26 : 41. 

Holy men of God spake as they -were 
moved by the Holy Ghost. 2 Pet. i : 

For ye were as sheep going astray ; 
but are now returned unto the Shep- 
herd and Bishop of your souls. 1 Pet 
2: 25. 

For your fellowship in the gospel 
from the first day until now. Phil. 1 : 

if any fellowship of the Spirit. 
Phil. 2 : 1. 

the fellowship of his sufferings. 
Phil. 3 : 10. 

But to do good, and to communicate 
forget not. Heb. 13 : 16. 

that the communication of thy faith 
may become effectual. Philem. 6. 

The elders which are among you I 
exhort, who am also an elder. 1 Pet. 

Where two or three are gathered to- 
gether in my name. Matt. 18 : 20. 

where the disciples were assembled. 
John 20 : 19. 

If I have told you earthly things, and 
ye believe not, how shall ye believe if 
I tell you of heavenly things? John 
3: 12. 

That at the name of Jesus every 
knee should bow, of things in heaven, 
and things in earth, and things under the 
earth. Phil. 2 : 10. 

For we wrestle not against flesh and 
blood, but against principalities, against 
powers, against the rulers of the'dark- 
ness of this world, against spiritual 
wickedness in highborn. Eph. 6: 12. 

Ye call me Master, and Lord : and ye 
say well ; for so I am. John 13 : 13. 

Exhort servants to be obedient to 
their own masters. Tit. 2 : 9. 

The book of the generation of Jesus 
Christ, the son of David. Matt. 1 : 1. 

Is it not the communion of the blood 
of Christ. ICor. 10: 16. 

The communion of the Holy Ghost 
be with you all. 2 Cor. 13 : 14. 

Unto me, who am less than the least 
of all saints, is this grace given, that 
I should preach among the Gentiles the 

In whom you also are jointly erected 
into a habitation of God in spirit. p. 

But this slanderous speaking of the 
Spirit is not to be forgiven. p. 111. 

Prompt, indeed, the spirit but the 
flesh without strength. p 111 

Holy men of God spoke as (hey were 
moved by a holy spirit p. 131. 

For you were as sheep going astray ; 
but have now returned to the Shepherd 
and Superintendent of your souls. p. 

For your partnership in the good- 
news from the first day until the pres- 
ent. p. 276. 

if any partnership of spirit. p. 

the partnership of his sufferings. 
p. 277. 

But of the doing good, and of a part- 
nership be not forgetful. p. 277. 

that the partnership of thy faith 
may come to be energetic. p. 277. 

The Elders among you I exhort, who 
am a co-elder. p. 279. 

Where two or three are synagogued 
in my name. p. 286. 

where the disciples were syna- 
gogued. p. 286. 

If I said to you the earthlies, and you 
did not believe, how if I say to you 
the heaveulies, will you believe? p. 

That in the name of Jesus every knee 
should bend of heaveulies, and of earth- 
lies, and of internals. p. 302. 

Struggled not against blood and flesh, 
but with the principalities, with the 
powers, with the worldly forces of the 
darkness of this age, wilh the spirituals 
of the badness in the heavenlies. p. 

You title me The Teacher, and The 
Lord, and you designate well, for I am. 
p. 49. 

Exhort bond-men to be obedient to 
their own masters. p. 47. 

A roll of lineage of Jesus Christ, a 
son of David. p.~222. 

Is it not a partnership of the blood, 
of the Anointed? p. 272. 

The partnership of the Holy Spirit 
be with you all. p. 273. 

To me, who am less than the least of 
all the consecrated, was this very kind- 
ness granted to publith among the 


unsearchable riches of Christ ; And to 
make all men see what is the fellowship 
of the mystery, which from the begin- 
ning of the world hath been hid in God, 
who created all things by Jesus Christ : 
To the intent that now unto the princi- 
palities and powers in heavenly places 
might be known by the church the 
manifold wisdom of God. Eph. 3 : 8- 

Repent ye therefore, and lie convert- 
ed, that your sins may be blotted out. 
Acts 3 : 19. 

Preach the word ; be instant in sea- 
son, out of season, 2 Tim. 4 : 2. 

Who, being in the form of God, 
thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God : But made himself of no reputa- 
tion, and took upon him the form of a 
servant, and was made in the likeness 
of men : And being found in fashion as 
a man, he humbled himself, and became 
obedient unto death, even the death of 
the cross. Phil. 2 : 6-8. 

And have put on the new man. CoL 
3: 10. 

For he that soweth to his flesh, shall 
of the flesh reap corruption. GaL 6 : 8. 

And whosoever will be chief among 
you, let him be your servant. Matt. 
20: 27. 

For the Spirit searcheth all things, 
yea, the deep things of God. 1 Cor. 2 : 

And he gave some, apostles; and 
some, prophets ; and some, evangelists ; 
and some, pastors and teachers ; For 
the perfecting of the saints, for the 
work of the ministry, for the edifying 
of the body of Christ. Till we all 
come in the unity of the faith, and of 
the knowledge of the Son of God, unto 
a perfect man, unto the measure of the 
stature of the fulness of Christ. Eph. 
4: 11-13. 

And, without controversy, great is the 
mystery of godliness : God was mani- 
fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, 
seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- 
tiles, believed on in the world, received 
up into glory. 1 Tim. 3 : 16. 

nations the incomprehensible wealth 
of the Anointed ; And to enlighten all 
(as to) what is the. partnership of the 
mystery which has been hidden away 
from the eternity in God. who created 
all things through Jesus Christ, that the 
great variety of God's wisdom might 
now be made known through the con- 
gregation, to the principalities, and the 
authorities, among the heavenlies. p. 

Repent, therefore, and return, in or- 
der to the obliterating of your sins. 
p. 248. 

Announce the word ; be on hand, 
conveniently (and) inconveniently. p. 

Who, being in God's form, did not 
esteem the being like God a robbery 5 
yet he divested himself he assumed a 
bondman's form he existed in a simil- 
itude of men ; and, being found in ap- 
pearance as a man, he let himself down 
was submissive till death death, in- 
deed, by a cross. p. 174. 

You have put on the young man. p. 

He who sows into the flesh, shall out 
of the flesh reap corruption. p. 137. 

Whoever will be chief among you, 
let him be your bondman. p. 74. 

For the Spirit searches all things; 
yes, the depths of God. p. 90. 

Himself gave indeed the Apostles, 
and the Prophets, and the Evangelists, 
and the Shepherds and Teachers, for the 
adjusting of the consecrated, for a work 
of ministry, for building the body of 
the Anointed, until we, the whole, come 
into the oneness of the faith, and the 
thorough knowledge of the Son of God 
into a full-grown man into a mea- 
sure of a statue of the full measure of 
the Anointed. p. 267. 

And, without controversy, the secret 
of piety is great ; God was manifested 
in flesh, justified in spirit, beheld by 
angels, proclaimed among nations, be- 
lieved on in a world, received up in 
glory. p. 137 

Of the author of these . revisions, Rev. J. W. Morton, the reviser of 
John, in his letter of August 15, 1856, says: "He possesses, I think, 
some important qualifications in a higher degree than any other person 
with whom I am acquainted. I refer of course to his qualifications as a 
reviser. In no one point do I consider him seriously deficient." If this 


opinion can be relied on, Mr. Shepard is equal, if not superior to the 
other revisers of the Bible Union, with whom Mr, Morton is acquainted. 
And yet it must be evident to every unprejudiced mind, that the man 
who could, for any purpose whatever, make and publish such caricatures 
of the original Scriptures, as I have cited from the writings of Mr. Shep- 
ard, cannot be one of " the best Hebrew and Greek scholars that could 
be found in Europe and America," as the revisers of the Bible Union 
have been officially styled by the Revision Association, of which Rev. S. 
W. Lynd, D. D., is President. One more point will close this chapter, 
Mr. Wyckoff, in his summary of the Plan of Revision, says it was the 

" As each revision is sent in, to subject it to the inspection of tbe Committee on 
Yersions, and if by them judged worthy, to> bare copies taken anil furnished to 
all the other revisers." 

In his semi-annual Report for 2855, speaking of a reviser, Mr. Wyc- 
koff says : 

"When his work is finished the manuscript Is submitted to the Board, and re- 
ferred to the Committee on Versions, This Committee is required to give it a 
careful examination, and not to recommend its printing unless its merits will jus- 
tify such an expenditure." 

In a Report of the Committee on Versions, adopted by the Board 
May 12, 1856, it is said : 

" The reputation of the Union requires that we should not put in type and cir- 
culate, even among scholars, revisions that will not, in point of scholarship, de- 
honor to the Institution." 

The Committee of Investigation, in their Report, say : 

"The practice of the Committee on Versions, in regard to printing only such re- 
visions as may be suitable to put into the hands of the Final Board of Revisers, meets the 
full approbation of the Committee of Investigation." 

Erorn these official statements the conclusion is inevitable, that a revi- 
sion which has been examined by the Committee on Yersions with refer- 
ence to printing, and disapproved, must have been adjudged as not having 
sufficient merit to justify the expenditure of printing ; as not worthy to 
be copied for the examination of other revisers ; as not " suitable to put 
into the hands of the Final Board of Revisers ; " as not such as would 
" do honor to the Institution." Now, Mr. Wyckoff, in his Annual Report 
for 1855, speaking of Mr. Shepard's revision, says : 

" The Epistle to the Philippians is ready for examination, to go immediately 
to the stereotypers, if approved." 

The Committee on Yersions, about the same time, reported to the 
Board that this revision had been referred to a sub-committee for exami- 
nation ; but it has never been recommended for printing, because it was 
not "approved." Here, then, we have the judgment of the Committee 


on V-ersions, that the revision of four chapters, on which Mr. Shepatd 
had done his best, aud for which the Bible Union had paid him over 
$1,100, is not worth printing, or copying, or putting into the hands of the 
final examiners ; and that, if printed, it would not " do honor to the 
Institution " for which it was -made. 

I have now presented all the evidence that I deem necessary to prove 
the incompetency of Mr. S. E. Shepard to translate the Sacred Writings. 
It is sufficient, I think, to prove also, that they who pronounced my 
opposition to Mi\ Shepard's reappointment unreasonable, knowing his 
unfitness for the work, must have had some other object than that defined 
in the Constitution of the American Bible "Onion "To procure and cir- 
culate the most faithful versions of the Sacred Scriptures." And how the 
Committee of Investigation could, "in view of the fads in the case" 
unanimously agree that " the charge of incompetency is not sustained," 
I leave for Messrs. Lynd, Powell, James, Swaim, Fierce, Taylor, and 
other members of that Committee, to explain. If they have a proper 
sense of the responsibility which they assumed in sending forth to an 
anxious, confiding public, such a Report, as the result of their own personal 
examination, I think they will yet confess, that the findings in which 
they so "unanimously agreed," were not made "in view of the fads in 
the case." And the officers of a religious society, who can originate or 
endorse the statements of the Bible Revision Association, declaring that 
the Bible Union *' has called to the work of revising the Holy Scriptures 
forty of the best Hebrew and Greek scholars that could be found in 
Europe and America ;" and that " if the Bible Union's Board of Revisers 
are incompetent, it is because neither Europe nor America can furnish 
competent men," as they cannot be ignorant, must be reckless of truth. 

Besides what has been said by the officers respecting the number and 
qualifications of the Bible Union's revisers, many other groundless state- 
ments have been officially made respecting them ; of which I will give 
but a single example. 

In the Annual Report of the Revision Association for 1855, written 
by the Cor. Secretary, JAMES EDMUNDS, and adopted by the Board, and 
by the Association, of which Rev. S. W. Lynd, D.D., was President, 
in reference to persons engaged in revision for the Bible Union, it is 
said : 

" Our revisers have, many of them t resigned lucrative employments to engage 
in this work." 

Now, if there is a particle of truth in this official declaration, I have 
been strangely misinformed, in relation to matters of which I am sup- 
posed to have a perfect understanding. According to the best of my 
knowledge, there are not " many," who have resigned any employment 
to engage in the work of revision for the Bible Union ; and there is 
not one who has " resigned lucrative employment to engage in this work." 
Indeed, I know of no instance, in which any man has, on becoming a 
reviser of the Bible Union, given up a greater for a smaller salary. On 
the contrary, 1 know of some case';, in which men have been paid much 


higher salaries, as revisers of the Bible Union, than they had ever re- 
ceived from any other source. For instance, the highest salary -which 
Dr. Conant had ever received, was $1,500 ; but on becoming a reviser 1 
of the Bible Union, he relinquished $300, which had been paid him by 
the University of Rochester, and received in place of it $2,000 from the 
Bible Union, and had it stipulated, in his contract with the Union, that 
if he should ever resign his professorship in the Seminary, with the con- 
sent of the Bible Union, the remaining $-1,200, thereby relinquished; 
should be paid him by the Union ; in which case he is to receive, for 
his services as a reviser, $3,200 per annum $1,100 more than he had 
ever received in any other employment. 

It is in the face of such facts, of which the officers of the Revision 
Association cannot be ignorant, that they officially declare to the world, 
that " our revises have, many of them, resigned lucrative employments to 
engage in this work." There is not one of the officers of that Associa- 
tion, who does not know that this declaration is perfectly groundless. 
And how any man, with a conscience enlightened, and religiously educa- 
ted, could, knowing the facts of the case, write or endorse such a declar 
ation, is most unaccountable, 

Nearly all the revisers of the Bible Union engaged on the New Tes- 
tament, have finished the portions respectively assigned to them.* 
Matthew has been revised by Rev. "Wm. Pechey. of England, and by 
Rev. O. B. Jndd, of New York ;f Mark, by Rev. Wm. Pechey and Rev. 
T. Boys, of England, and Edward Maturin, Esq., of New York, sever- 
ally ; Luke, by Rev. J. Angus and Rev. A. S-. Thelwall, of England, 
Rev. J. Shannon, of Missouri, and Rev. J. Muenscher, of Ohio, severally; 
John, by Rev. J. Angus, Rev. A. S. Thelwall, and Rev. J. W. Morton, | 
of New Jersey, severally ; Acts, by Rev. J. T. Gray, of England, and 
Alexander Campbell, of Virginia, respectively; Romans, by Rev. J. 
A.ngus, Prof. E. Adkins, of Illinois, and Rev. P. Schaff, of Penusylvania f 
severally ; 1st & 2d Corinthians, by Rev. F. Clowes, of England, Rev. 
J. W. Morton and Eld. S. E. Shepard, of New York or Pennsylvania, 
severally ; Galatians, Rev. J. T. Gray and Rev. S. W. Lynd, of Illinois, 
respectively ; Ephesians, by Rev. N. Whiting, of Williamsburg, Rev. 
F. Clowes, and Rev. John Forsyth, of Newburgh, severally ; Philip- 
pians, by Rev. Wm. Pechey, Rev. E. Gallup, of Hamilton, and Eld. 
S. E. Shepard, severally ; Colossians, by Rev. F. Clowes, Rev. E. Gal 

* Rev. J. W. MORTOX and Eld. S. E. SHEPARD may be still at work on Corintk 

ns^ and some on other portions. 

f For reasons already explained, only the first three chapters of my work have 
been delivered to the Board. 

J Mr. Morton's revision of John has been stereotyped since 1854 ; but for good 
reasons it has not yet been allowed to see the light. As might be inferred from 
his doctrines on the Greek text, already cited, Mr. Morton has handled the ori- 
ginal with amazing temerity. Numerous passages and words are ejected from 
his revision as spurious. In one place, twelve consecutive verses are condemned 
and cast out. 

Mr. Campbell's revision of Acts has been in process of being stereotyped 
ever since the lall of 1855 ; and when finished, it will probably take the same 
course as the Gospel of John. 


lup, and Rev. W. P. Strickland, of Ohio, severally ; 1st & 2d Thessalo- 
nians, by Rev. J. T. Gray, anil Rev. John Lillie, of New York, respec- 
tively ; 1st & 2d Timothy, by Rev. J. T Gray, and Rev. James Lillie, 
of Canada, respectively ; Titus, by Rev. F. Clowes, and Rev. Jas. Lillie, 
respectively ; Philemon, by Rev. J, Angus, Rev. James Lillie, and Rev. 
John Lillie, severally ; Hebrews, by Rev. J. T. Gray, Rev. Jas. Lillie, 
and Rev. N. Whiting, severally ; James, by Rev. Win. Pechey, and 
Rev. James Lillie, respectively ; 1st Peter, by Rev. Wm. Pechey, Rev. 
James Lillie, and Rev. John Lillie, severally ; 2d Peter, and 1st, 2d, & 
3d John, by Rev. William Pechey, and Rev. John Lillie, respectively ; 
Jude, by Rev. J. Angus, and Rev. John Lillie, respectively ; and 
Revelation, by Rev. F. Clowes and Rev. John Lillie. 

If the judgment of the Committee on Versions can be taken as a cri- 
terion, nine-tenths of these revisions will be of little or no service to the 
Bible Union. And from the official announcement that " the practice 
of the Committee on Versions, in regard to printing only such revisions 
as may be suiiabh to put into the hands of the Final Board of Revisers, 
meets the full approbation of the Committee of Investigation," it might 
be inferred that but few of them will ever be examined by the final 

In the spring of 1856, after the public mind had become somewhat 
agitated, by the first investigations into the affairs of the Bible Union, 
the Committee on Versions recommended to the Board to instruct them 
to report the names of the final revisers, with the plan of their work ; 
which recommendation was adopted, and accordingly, in the Bible Union 
Quarterly, for May, 1856, appeared, under the head of " Good News," 
the following official announcement : 

" The Board has participated in the universal desire to press forward the enter- 
prize as rapidly as a just appreciation of ultimate consequences will justify ; and 
it is peculiarly gratifying to them to be able to announce the probability that the 
incipient revision of the New Testament will be so far advanced at the next 
Anniversary, as to render it expedient to adopt regulations for the ultimate revis- 
ion. They have therefore issued the following instruction upon the subject, to the 
Committee on Versions : 

" ' Resolved, That the Committee on Versions be instructed to take the whole 
matter into serious consideration, and report to the Board such recommendations 
of names for appointment of members in the final body of revisers, and plans for 
the completion of the work, as will enable the Board to submit the entire subject 
to the Union for its action, in October next.' 

" Our friends at a distance will hail the above announcement with joy." 

Dr. Maclaysays he "had always understood that the Final College of 
Revisers were to be appointed by the Union ; and that in the absence of 
any special provision for nomination, the privilege of nomination belonged 
in all cases to the appointing power ; but the Committee on Versions took 
up the matter, asked the Board for power to nominate the members of 
the Final College, and to prepare the plan of its operations." To this 
the Committee of Investigation, evading the point as to what was ori- 
ginally intended and understood, and officially announced, reply as 
follows : 


'' The Union could not do this work, as every man of practical experience can 
testify. Nobody on earth w.ould think of proceeding in such -important matters in 
full assembly." 

Yet I find the following official statement, published in various docu- 
ments of the Bible Union, over the names of S. H. Cone, Win. H. 
Wyckoff and Win. Colgate : 

" In accordance with the plan of the American Bible Union for the revision of 
the English New Testament, the ivork of each of the revisers MUST be subjected to the crit- 
ical examination of the rest, and of such other scholars as have expressed a willingness 
to assist, ; and after being again revised by the author, with the aid of their sug- 
gestions, be submitted to a Committee of Revisers appointed by the Union for final 
adjudication upon every word and phrase." 

Now, however, the Committee of Investigation may, by necessary 
implication, pronounce Messrs. Cone, Wyckoff and Colgate to have been 
men of no "practical experience," they did nevertheless officially declare 
that the Final Committee was to be "appointed ly the Union;" just as 
Dr. Maclay says he had understood ; and just as the Committee of Inves- 
tigrtion say " nobody on earth would think of." 

But in pursuance of the " instructions," given to the Committee on 
"Versions by the Board, at the Committee's own request, as above related, 
that Committee reported in September, about six months after being so 
instructed, a plan for the final revision ; but they made no " recommenda- 
tions of names for appointment of members in the final body of revisers," 
as directed by the order of their "instructions ;" nor did they assign any 
reasons for disregarding this part of their "instructions." The plan 
which the Committee on Versions recommended the Board to request the 
Union to adopt, was passed at the anniversary in October, and published 
in the Bible Union Quarterly for November, 1856. It contains among 
other provisions the following : 

" The Board shall proceed to appoint the final Committee of Revisers, and fix 
their salaries, -within three months from the present date, Oct. 1, 1856, to com- 
mence then* labors as soon as they can be brought together." 

" The Committee shall consist of not less than five nor more than seven, select- 
ed on account of their acknowledged qualifications." 

" They shall prosecute their labors, so far as practicable, at the Bible Union 
Rooms, in the city of New York, and from the time of their organization, they 
shall devote at least seven hours per day exclusively to the revision of the New 
Testament till it is completed, or during the pleasure of the Board." 

" When a book is under revision, every manuscript or printed revision, or criti- 
cism, on any part of it, in the ^possession of the Union, shall be placed in the 
hands of the Committee, and these shall all be carefully examined in reference to 
every proposed improvement, and the parts referring to the improvement, inclu- 
ding the authorities, shall be read aloud in the Committee, and duly considered 
before any change is decided upon." 

" The Committee shall not adopt any change, which may have been made in the 
incipient revisions, unless they deem it an improvement upon the English version, 
and incapable of being further improved by them." 

The plan embracing these provisions having been formed and reported 
by the Committee on Versions, and recommended by the Board, and 



adopted by the Union, the whole subject was referred back to the Com- 
mittee on Version's, with instructions to nominate the final committee in 
accordance with the unconditional order of the Union, requiring their 
appointment "within three months" from October 1, 1856. But in the 
Bible Union Quarterly, for February,. 185 T, the so-called editors, Messrs 
"Wyckoff and Buckbee, explain as follows : 

" The Committee on Versions have held seven meetings in the examination of 
correspondence and deliberating respecting the Final Committee on the English 
New Testament. They are perfectly unanimous in their views, but require further 
opportunity for deliberation, consultation and correspondence, which the Board 
unanimously grants." " According to present prospects, our consultations and 
arrangements for the nomination of the Final Committee are rapidly approaching 
maturity ; but the Board will not venture to appoint them till the condition of 
the treasury will afford a reasonable assurance of their support, and of the means 
of purchasing such books as, we understand, they will need for the proper prosecu- 
tion of their work." 

The order of the Union says "the Board shall proceed to appoint the 
final committee of revisers and fix their salaries, within three months" 
from October 1, 1856. After four months have elapsed, and no such 
Committee has been appointed, Messrs. Wyckoff and Buckbee tell us 
that "the Board will not venture to appoint them till the condition of the 
treasury will afford a reasonable assurance of their support." 

But it is now generally understood that Prof. H. B. Hackett, of New- 
tn Theol. Institution, Mass., Eev. P. Schaff, of Mercersburg, Pa., Prof. 
B. Rodiger, of Germany, and Prof. T. J. Conant, of Eochester, with 
some man not yet selected or announced, are to constitute the final 
Committee. The first three are not expected to leave their present 
positions, and duties ; so they cannot, as the plan requires, and the positive 
order of the Union says " they shall, prosecute their, labors, so far as 
practicable, at the Bible Union Rooms ;" nor can they, as the same order 
says they shall, " devote at least seven hours per day exclusively to the 
revision of the New Testament till it is completed." Dr. Conant has 
resigned his professorship in the Rochester Theol. Seminary, and is to 
spend his whole time in revision, alternating between the ]S~ew and the 
Old Testament, the latter being exclusively secured to him by contract, 
and the former, falling into his hands by the force of circumstances, and 
the exigencies of the times. According to the contract, Dr. Conant will 
receive a salary of three thousand and two hundred dollars per annum. 
As to the compensation of the other members of that Committee, I am 
not informed, but presume they are to be paid at the same rate with Dr. 

It is difficult to see how that Committee can, in conformity with the 
rules laid down by the Union, make any use of the revision work already 
done. For one of the rules says, "the Committee shall not adopt any 
change which may have been made in the incipient revisions, unless they 
deem it an improvement upon the English version, and incapable of 
being further improved by them." And they cannot judge intelligently 
whether a proposed change is such an "improvement upon the English 
version," and "incapable of further improvement," without giving about 


as much time and study as would be required to do toe work anew from 
the beginning. And in this view of the case, many years must yet be 
allowed before the production of a revised version by the Bible Union can 
be expected. 

According to the official Reports of the Union, there have been already 
expended by that Institution, on account of the revision of the English 
Yersion, about two hundred thousand dollars. Whether the friends of 
pure versions will continue their contributions, notwithstanding the official 
mismanagement of the Bible Union, for years to come, must depend, it 
seems to me, very much upon the amount of misrepresentation that can 
be palmed upon the public mind by salaried officers, ex parte Committees 
of Investigation, and other interested parties. 

There are some other matters, in relation to the Bible Union, which I 
may have occasion to speak of hereafter ; but which cannot be properly 
set forth at present. If a fair opportunity for the consideration of the 
affairs of the Union had been allowed at the last Anniversary, the neces- 
sity of much of this exposition would have been superseded. But in a 
spirit unworthy of, and unbecoming the Bible Union, all such opportunity 
was intentionally cut off. The day before the meeting, an employee of 
the Board was overheard saying, that they had no fear but that they 
would get through the Anniversary without any difficulty, if they could 
keep Mr. Judd from speaking, and they intended to pass a resolution 
limiting every speaker to fifteen minutes; after which Mr. Judd would not 
attempt to make a speech in that time. Accordingly, at the opening of 
the meeting, Rev. Wm. S. Clapp offered a resolution, limiting each speaker 
to ten minutes. To this strong opposition began to be manifested; it was 
deprecated by several, and others desired to speak against it ; but Rev. 
S. W. Lynd moved the "previous question," and it was carried. So that, 
though some of the gravest questions which were ever before the Union, 
were by the Committee of Investigation and otherwise brought up in that 
meeting, no adequate opportunity was allowed for their discussion. With 
such a limitation, as to .time, no one would think of entering fully into 
any of the questions before the Union. Even the prescriptive policy, 
by which Messrs. Geo. W. Abbe and S. R. Kelly had been dropped from 
the Finance Committee, and by which Messrs. Abbe and Tripp, who were 
among the founders of the Union, and who had been members of the 
Board from the beginning, were now dropped from that body, was too 
important to be properly disposed of in a ten minutes speech. But when 
the nomination was brought in for the Board, I inquired, through the 
President of the Committee on Nominations, who had been substituted for 
Messrs. Abbe and Tripp, and the Chairman of that committee, Charles 
Duffield, Esq., very courteously replied, that he did not consider the Com- 
mittee was bound to answer any such question. Such conduct on the 
part of the chief manager, through his coadjutors, in the name of the 
Union, rendered it necessary for me to treat matters more fully in this 
review, than I otherwise should have done. 

I have written throughout with great plainness of speech/ because 
the nature of the case demands it, and I cannot dissemble. But I am 
not conscious of having been actuated by, or possessed of unkind feeling 


towards any person, upon whose conduct I have felt it my duty to ani- 
madvert. There* are, doubtless, . some of my sincere friends, who, not 
understanding, or not realizing the. condition of affairs, have hoped that 
my promised pamphlet would never appear. And no one can regret 
more deeply than I do, the exigency which calls for its ^publication. . 

The principle, of faithful versions of the inspired writings, and the 
cause of Bible translation, are as dear to me as ever. I sincerely and 
strongly desire to see a thorough, faithful revision of the English ver- 
sion. And, though I have no confidence in the Bible Union under its 
present management, yet I shall rejoice in everything that truly tends 
towards the achievement of this glorious object, whether in that or any 
other Institution.